Post/Author/DateTime	Post
0rion79 03-13-07, 08:29 AM	Hi buddies, probably you already have discussed about this matter, but I would like to know your opinion about what follows: Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 rules are not enough to make our most beloved RPG balanced enough. The main problem is that players using high-level spellcasters will automatically make the other players, using characters from the other classes, to feel useless. Escluding some nonsense found in the rules and very unrealistic facts like, for example, that a 20th level melee character does not develop any dodge skill and his/her base AC is equal to a 1st level character of the same class, the biggest problems come from primary spellcasters: except the poor bard (still not bad at all if used propely), they are just too strong. Not only they don't fear a melee warrior even if they are very closed to him (fire shield, stoneskin, shield, mage armor ecc...) but they are automatically better than any intruder (silence, invisibility, rapid retreat, greater invisibility, fly) and they can do much more damange, by fact, than any melee fighter (from the most usual fireball to meteor swarm or whatever). A cleric may be a better warrior than a figher (divine power, holy might), or a wizard with tenser's trasformation, as well as a LG wizard may be much more effective in punishing evil than a paladin! What the use of spending a lot of skill points into hide and move silently, if a wizard with invisibility may do just better and with lesser risks? What the use of becomming a good paladin, with severe restrictions, if a wizard can do more damange than my holy sword with his spells? As written above, the main problem is that players using high-level spellcasters will automatically make the other players, using characters from the other classes, to feel useless. A wizard should disperately be in need all the time of a strong warrior to hold the first line, but it is not and, generally, each class should be a specailist in something and there should be no spell that should make a not-specialized character to be performing as much as a specialized one in its own specialization field. IMHO, the solution should be both to weak some of the strongest spells, both to improve the other classes accoringly with this logic: 1st level - rookie, as in real life. 2nd to 5th level - expert, thanks to intensive training 6th to 9th level - extraordinary character that does things at the edge of incredible, a real master in its own profession. 10th to 20th level - rank of hero or evil force, a character that, in a fantastic word, reached a level of power that is already over the edge of human limits but still not equal to the one reached by epic-level characters. This should count even for intruder and warrior classes, that should just be stronger and better than how they are now, maybe with some extraordinary class abilities, proper 10+ level feats that allow them to do outstanding things. I think that, rightfully, a 15th level barbarian should be able to split into two parts a huge tree with one single strike, or something like that... you know, that cartoon stuff, maybe a bit like the "Berserk" manga/japanese comic, just as his class ability and not being in desperate need of magic items to feel still useful with a powerful spellcaster around. At the end of the whole matter, D&D 3.5 is much more better than AD&D II edition, but still it lacks in proper rules to have the players to feel an acceptable level of reality (at least as much a game balancement allows, in a world with magic) and a good balancement among classes that makes all classes useful and does not make any class universally better than the others. What do you think about?
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-13-07, 09:36 AM	(This thread would work better in the General forum.) First off, I don't give a :censored: about reality, realism, anything like that. That's just my opinion, but I think if we're going so far as to include various fantasy elements we might as well go all the way and not care about "real" things. I also don't claim to be an expert. Please do not respond to this as if you think I think I am. I am simply doing the best I can with what I know about the game. The problem with class balance is that the spells and mundane fighting have been built from different bases. To start off with spell damage scales by die instead of by a fixed bonus or ability score. Fighter: Greatsword 2d6 + Str score that only increases once every few levels or by magic additions + magic additions to damage that don't scale precisely by level Wizard: 2nd level spell Xd6 where X is the wizard's caster level Now it may be possible that a fighter who puts effort into increasing his ability to deal damage can very likely pass by the wizard in terms of guaranteed damage and maybe even pure damage based on that bonus. But that's the thing: it's dependant on optimization, whereas the wizard gains the damage increase without having to do anything other than stay in his class. That makes martial classes less fun to play because they can't experiment with unusual concepts or they'll fall behind. And then the rest of the martial/spells divide turns out in a similar way: designed from a different standpoint in terms of various effects on the game such as damage. Were spells that make casters simulate martials created with the full realization that nothing existed to allow martials to retain their position in spite of this simulation? Arguements of Anti-Magic Field and Disjunction don't hold up because these are things casters can do to other casters and the products of their castings. In fact a caster with a well-used AMF or Disjunction can screw with the magic-dependant other classes, which are dependant because opponents scale faster than the mechanics of the mundane that non-casters are bound to. My opinion is that even if the game is balanced it's only balanced by a precarious heaping of requirements on various classes to be able to compete with one another. So long as this continues we will see debate about casters overshadowing martials. Unfortunately the way to fix this is to redesign the entire system, and I highly doubt that's going to happen. At all. But I'll say what I think would help if such a fix were miraculously to occur: 1) Scale all effects in a fixed system from a standard point. Take my damage example: if either spells were designed to scale in damage as weapons do or weapons were designed to scale as spells do then it would be easier for each class to hold its own. Now, spells have advantages such as being touch attacks and area effects, but if we scale all damage in the same way we can decide that every special effect of a spell is "worth" a certain reduction in damage or other penalty to the spell (such as making it highly inaccurate). 2) If casters gain an ability to do something that non-casters can only do with an investment, then non-casters should get a comenserate ability to do something casters cannot even do. Either than or never allow this to come up. That's about all that I can think of. The fixed-point system I've seen in action, and it really does work.
0rion79 03-13-07, 11:06 AM	Interesting point of view, but I want to mark 2 things: 1 - the overpower of spellcasters has been noted by many players: it is ok if the wizard or any of the classes grows powerful, but it is NOT ok when it makes null and useless all the other classes, that are needed in the party just to make number. In my DM last game session, Gandalf, wizard, (no comments about names please) told to Amsi, monk,: "Amsi, move aside! I'm next to kill that monster!" because he was in life for his lightning bolt and, as often happened, Amsi wasn't able to strike enough his foe, due to too low base attack bonus, to deal him enough damage. Poor monk! His stats are outstanding but still Gandalf is better than him both in dealing damage, in defending himself and as an intruder. There is no match. 2 - I agree for other notes, but I want you to remember the origins of all RPGs: they are born from psycological simulations of real life that help the actors to better understand meccanics into realistic scenarios, to learn how to deal with daily problems without the stress of daily life but with the help and comfort from the play atmosphere. D&D is not an exception: imho, reality must not prevent game balancement but is an essential part to help players to interpretate their characters and to play a good script. More, reality does not mean the absecnce of fantastic creatures and magic, but only what we may suppose to be a fair interaction of these elements all together with medieval environment.
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-13-07, 11:24 AM	1 - the overpower of spellcasters has been noted by many players: it is ok if the wizard or any of the classes grows powerful, but it is NOT ok when it makes null and useless all the other classes, that are needed in the party just to make number. ……Poor monk! His stats are outstanding but still Gandalf is better than him both in dealing damage, in defending himself and as an intruder. There is no match. So what you are saying is that most players think it's okay if the wizard is powerful so long as it still allows the other classes to do something? That sound fine, but what exactly does that mean? I can't think of any roles a caster has that can not be mehcanically filled by another class, with the exception of long-range combatant. 2 - I agree for other notes, but I want you to remember the origins of all RPGs: they are born from psycological simulations of real life that help the actors to better understand meccanics into realistic scenarios, to learn how to deal with daily problems without the stress of daily life but with the help and comfort from the play atmosphere. D&D is not an exception: imho, reality must not prevent game balancement but is an essential part to help players to interpretate their characters and to play a good script. More, reality does not mean the absecnce of fantastic creatures and magic, but only what we may suppose to be a fair interaction of these elements all together with medieval environment. If you put it that way I consider it even more silly: there's no way to simulate real life, it's just too complex. I just think that the elements of the game mechanics should be approached from their own standpoint and not from trying to simulate reality, thus making them absurd. My main point about not caring whether there was any realism was to address the way weapons calculate damage vs. spells and to hedge the possibility that I might suggest that melee damage should scale as spell damage does.
unfortunate_crow 03-13-07, 11:52 AM	A lot of the problem comes from selfish players. Instead of the Wizard always buffing himself, he should be buffing his allies.
0rion79 03-13-07, 12:08 PM	So what you are saying is that most players think it's okay if the wizard is powerful so long as it still allows the other classes to do something? That sound fine, but what exactly does that mean? I can't think of any roles a caster has that can not be mehcanically filled by another class, with the exception of long-range combatant. No, I just told that many players already have had the demonstration that spellcasters are more powerful than melee characters, so much that the melee characters are really in need of a big help from the DM to fill that difference. All the rest is just my humble opinion. [...]there's no way to simulate real life, it's just too complex. Sorry, but I disagree. The way of RPG as game version (not psycoterapy) is not to SIMULATE but only to REPRESENT real life in a semplified way, with numbers and dices. In order, in 1st place game balancement and playability, in 2nd place a good reality degree to help players to immedesimate themselves. I'm the first one to say that an excess of rules sucks, since it slows down the game too much, but rules should be done so that, when a player experiments them, they "just should make sense" (or have sense or whatever in english, sorry), they should be intuitive and I think that 3.5 rules, even if a great stepp foward from D&D or AD&D II, are not perfect yet and it is not impossible to create a better and more balanced set of rules. C'mon, how may you accept some silliness like the fact that, with a paladin's mount with evasion, if the paladin is upon it and he is alive, it does NOT get the evasion bonus but, if he is on the mount and dead, then he is considered as an object and then he gains evasion? Or the fact that there is a limit to the damage that a character gets from falling from certian heights, regardless of the increasing of the height itself? I think that this is really crazy and that one of the biggest troubles of D&D is that there are too many manuals made by different people and it is hard even for writters to really have a good view of the whole. I think that many unexpert players go around thinking only in terms of numbers and dices, not instead as they would be if they were really in the shoes of their character. Just to name a sample, once a character of mine refused to jump from a 5th floor window to the ground floor (outside the building) because he was scared to, even if he just had enough HPs to greatly survive the fall: this is the way! In other words, when rules are good, a player must be able to "see" the whole scene in his/her mind: if there are black holes in his view, something that he just can't imagine, then rules sucks.
Millennium 03-13-07, 12:16 PM	Hi buddies, probably you already have discussed about this matter, but I would like to know your opinion about what follows: Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 rules are not enough to make our most beloved RPG balanced enough. The main problem is that players using high-level spellcasters will automatically make the other players, using characters from the other classes, to feel useless. [quote]Escluding some nonsense found in the rules and very unrealistic facts like, for example, that a 20th level melee character does not develop any dodge skill and his/her base AC is equal to a 1st level character of the same class... If you choose not to learn how to dodge attacks, then you don't learn how to dodge attacks. If you do choose to learn how to dodge attacks, as represented by stat boosts and feats, then you learn how to dodge attacks. How exactly is this unrealistic nonsense?
Sykus 03-13-07, 12:25 PM	You know, I've seen this argument several times now and I finally have to break down and say it: I completely disagree. Can casters do bigger burst damage then a fighter? Yeah, sometimes. But not if that fighter has any kind of magical equipment (which he should) to enhance his strength, and uses power attack. Those two things, coupled with the ability to attack multiple times per round, EVERY ROUND, often allow the fighter/raging barbarian to put out more per damage per round than the party wizard can. Are casters better in every circumstance? No, definitely not. Throw a caster in a room with some golems and see how it turns out, then add a fighter to the mix. Or, trying running through an entire castle with encounter after encounter after encounter and see how the wizard holds up compared to the front line fighters. A lot of wizards blow everything they have early, or have to hold back in the early fights if they're expecting a marathon. Front-liners, on the other hand, can give their all every single round, round after round after round. Are casters unperturbed by being in melee with a monster? Not if the DM is doing his/her job right. In my experience wizards still fear being in melee quite a bit, at least when I'm DMing. A *lot* of monsters have Power Attack and a 2 hander. Wizards, even with higher level critical immunities, bonuses to AC, and the like, have notoriously low ACs and HP, making power attack a juicy choice. If a wizard gets into melee with a giant or something similiar, or even a straight Figher with a +1/lvl BAB, he should be toast. If not, you as the DM screwed something up. Additionally, the person who said that the wizard should be buffing his allies has it right. If said wizard would cast haste once in awhile instead of constantly turning invisible in the first round, you'd see the whole party become vastly more effective, and primarily through the vehicle of the front-line fighters.
D1Tremere 03-13-07, 12:26 PM	No, I just told that many players already have had the demonstration that spellcasters are more powerful than melee characters, so much that the melee characters are really in need of a big help from the DM to fill that difference. All the rest is just my humble opinion. Sorry, but I disagree. The way of RPG as game version (not psycoterapy) is not to SIMULATE but only to REPRESENT real life in a semplified way, with numbers and dices. In order, in 1st place game balancement and playability, in 2nd place a good reality degree to help players to immedesimate themselves. I'm the first one to say that an excess of rules sucks, since it slows down the game too much, but rules should be done so that, when a player experiments them, they "just should make sense" (or have sense or whatever in english, sorry), they should be intuitive and I think that 3.5 rules, even if a great stepp foward from D&D or AD&D II, are not perfect yet and it is not impossible to create a better and more balanced set of rules. C'mon, how may you accept some silliness like the fact that, with a paladin's mount with evasion, if the paladin is upon it and he is alive, it does NOT get the evasion bonus but, if he is on the mount and dead, then he is considered as an object and then he gains evasion? Or the fact that there is a limit to the damage that a character gets from falling from certian heights, regardless of the increasing of the height itself? I think that this is really crazy and that one of the biggest troubles of D&D is that there are too many manuals made by different people and it is hard even for writters to really have a good view of the whole. I think that many unexpert players go around thinking only in terms of numbers and dices, not instead as they would be if they were really in the shoes of their character. Just to name a sample, once a character of mine refused to jump from a 5th floor window to the ground floor (outside the building) because he was scared to, even if he just had enough HPs to greatly survive the fall: this is the way! In other words, when rules are good, a player must be able to "see" the whole scene in his/her mind: if there are black holes in his view, something that he just can't imagine, then rules sucks. I'm pritty sure there are more made up words in this then real english. Your oinion is just as wrong.
0rion79 03-13-07, 12:26 PM	A lot of the problem comes from selfish players. Instead of the Wizard always buffing himself, he should be buffing his allies. This is not the only problem, the point is that usually spellcasters can do better what is supposed to be other classes' specialization: a cleric may fight better than a fighter or barbarian, a wizard may sneak better than a monk or a rogue and so on. It is not a matter of being selfish or not, just the fact that they are more powerful and they become more essential than they other party members, that soon or later will begin to feel useless if the DM does not fill that difference with magic items. But those classes should already have some special class feature that make them the best choiche for that unique task! A spellcaster should simply go closed to it but NEVER be equal or better in it!
0rion79 03-13-07, 12:35 PM	1 - fighter has any kind of magical equipment (which he should) to enhance his strength, and uses power attack. 2 - Throw a caster in a room with some golems and see how it turns out. A lot of wizards blow everything they have early, or have to hold back in the early fights if they're expecting a marathon. 3 - Are casters unperturbed by being in melee with a monster? Not if the DM is doing his/her job right. 4 - Additionally, the person who said that the wizard should be buffing his allies has it right.. 1 - the fighter has to find it while the wizard or any spellcaster have direct access to their spell without any DM interference. Even if a wizard may be forced to use whatever the DM allows him to find, the sorcerer doesn not have that trouble. 2 - a wizard that can fly and may use tenser's trasformation does not have that trouble and, anyway, a wizard may teleport himself into a secure place, rest, prepare the spells for the event and come back to smash the golems. Not all matches may be considered a marathon. 3 - with a skilled spellcaster, it is hard to find a reason to justify all the time specialized foes that may heavily test his magical protections. After a while, the player will say "what a f**k? You never allow me to use my spells!" 4 - yes but we are talking about spellcasters and not about the wizard only. Sorry, I don't want to be nasty and you told me the same things that I thougth at the beginning, but years of pratice told me that your argumentations are not ebough to fill the difference and that melee warriors should be more devasting or spellcaster generally weaker.
0rion79 03-13-07, 12:37 PM	I'm pritty sure there are more made up words in this then real english. Your oinion is just as wrong. Please, don't answer like this guy. I need motivations, I hate people that just say "you are wrong because I'm right". And I apologize if I may look mean, but remember that english is not my mother language and sometimes I may use some unproper experssion. Thanks.
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-13-07, 12:41 PM	No, I just told that many players already have had the demonstration that spellcasters are more powerful than melee characters, so much that the melee characters are really in need of a big help from the DM to fill that difference. All the rest is just my humble opinion. Humble opinion respected. But why should the melees get boosted rather than the casters get humbled? I'm actually for increasing power, but not if it results in more rules. Sorry, but I disagree. The way of RPG as game version (not psycoterapy) is not to SIMULATE but only to REPRESENT real life in a semplified way, with numbers and dices. Okay, that makes more sense. In order, in 1st place game balancement and playability No arguement. in 2nd place a good reality degree to help players to immedesimate themselves. Bolded word not understood, so I'm going to have to assume you mean something like immerse. It's always confused me that people need little hooks of realism to immerse themselves in something that isn't real. That's just a statement of how I am able to see the world, not a statement of how the world should be. I'm the first one to say that an excess of rules sucks, since it slows down the game too much, but rules should be done so that, when a player experiments them, they "just should make sense" (or have sense or whatever in english, sorry), they should be intuitive and I think that 3.5 rules, even if a great stepp foward from D&D or AD&D II, are not perfect yet and it is not impossible to create a better and more balanced set of rules. I didn't say that. I can see how you misinterpreted what I said, but that's not what I meant. What I said incorporated the complaints of many players that they did not want to have to buy a new system plus the idea that there are many things in the game that have been held over from old editions despite the fact that they don't really work in terms of mechanics and/or concept. C'mon, how may you accept some silliness like the fact that, with a paladin's mount with evasion, if the paladin is upon it and he is alive, it does NOT get the evasion bonus but, if he is on the mount and dead, then he is considered as an object and then he gains evasion? Or the fact that there is a limit to the damage that a character gets from falling from certian heights, regardless of the increasing of the height itself? I just can. I don't see why that's hard. Of course, if you can change those rules without making them more complicated than I'll accept the new ones just as readily. I think that this is really crazy and that one of the biggest troubles of D&D is that there are too many manuals made by different people and it is hard even for writters to really have a good view of the whole. Agreed. I've played in systems that only need one book to function. I think that many unexpert players go around thinking only in terms of numbers and dices, not instead as they would be if they were really in the shoes of their character. Just to name a sample, once a character of mine refused to jump from a 5th floor window to the ground floor (outside the building) because he was scared to, even if he just had enough HPs to greatly survive the fall: this is the way! In other words, when rules are good, a player must be able to "see" the whole scene in his/her mind: if there are black holes in his view, something that he just can't imagine, then rules sucks. Here we get into the divide between people who are good at imagining and people who have trouble. In my first D&D game ever I had no trouble acting stupid despite metagame knowledge, and it nearly got me killed once. Because I choose to let it. Now my thinking is that the conceptual divide between player and character is similar to what you said about needing realism to immerse oneself in the game. Since I can work past that on my own I don't see the gap that faces other people. If this is the case and your statement represents the majority then you may be better off ignoring things I say. Just a suggestion.
malisteen 03-13-07, 12:47 PM	This does belong in the general forum.... There are lots of problems with D&D. Poor balance between casters and non-casters, as though they were designed for two completely differant games. Ease of prestige classing. Etc. I'm actually looking towards the new edition of Star Wars d20 (Star Wars: Saga Edition, due for release in May). There are a lot of major changes: no skill points, sliding condition scale, completely revised 'force' system, chasses rebuilt from the bottom up. It looks very interesting, and it wouldn't shock me if in the long term it proved to be a testing ground for material that could eventually appear in the fabled 4.0
Arivia 03-13-07, 01:21 PM	Welcome to the wonderful wide world of not a problem. This has been built into the game for years, to replicate the narrative staple of arcane spellcasters drastically increasing from weaklings to earth-shaking forces. If you really think it's a problem, go pick up the 2e supplement DM's Option: High-Level Campaigns, which has three pages of suggestions on managing this. Alternatively, pick up Power of Faerun and have it not even matter any more.
unfortunate_crow 03-13-07, 03:47 PM	This is not the only problem, the point is that usually spellcasters can do better what is supposed to be other classes' specialization: a cleric may fight better than a fighter or barbarian, a wizard may sneak better than a monk or a rogue and so on. It is not a matter of being selfish or not, just the fact that they are more powerful and they become more essential than they other party members, that soon or later will begin to feel useless if the DM does not fill that difference with magic items. But those classes should already have some special class feature that make them the best choiche for that unique task! A spellcaster should simply go closed to it but NEVER be equal or better in it! A pretty good portion of the time, the problem is caused by the wizard or cleric using spells that enhance those abilities for himself. If the wizard or cleric were to cast those buffs on somebody who specializes in [whatever], then the specialist would be even better at [whatever].
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-13-07, 04:03 PM	A pretty good portion of the time, the problem is caused by the wizard or cleric using spells that enhance those abilities for himself. If the wizard or cleric were to cast those buffs on somebody who specializes in [whatever], then the specialist would be even better at [whatever]. Then maybe the fix is that certain magic should never work on the one who casts it? I've seriously thought that this would be at least an interesting idea, if not an actual quick fix. It would force people into certain roles, but I think by most of what's happening with casters and non-casters that this may be the best alternative at present.
Kain Darkwind 03-13-07, 04:12 PM	As for your concern, Orion, I don't think it is as much of one as the character optimization boards would let you think. In an actual game where the DM doesn't cater solely to the casters, the fighters and other melee characters have plenty of fun. It is all about challenging each and every member of the party, and doing so as a team rather than a group of individuals.
Dragonteuthis 03-13-07, 04:25 PM	Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 rules are not enough to make our most beloved RPG balanced enough. I find the longer I play the less I care about the rules. My players, with one exception, feel the same way. And, I know the rules extremely well. Nowadays we make up classes, change races and weaponry, and so on on the fly. We all have a goal of making a kind of story (not one you'd write a novel about), with mixes of roleplaying and fun combat. New combat scenarios are the most fun, and it's easier to make such things if you throw a lot of rules out the window, and build a thematically appropriate encounter that's appropriately balanced for the players. Basically, we've broken the rules almost down to core d20. We're even working on a spellcasting system to replace the spell slot system (we want to emulate the "maneuvers" system from Tome of Battle), though that's coming along slowly. Honestly I've never understood what the hang-up on rules "loopholes" is. They're pointless and they never see action in a game for long...the DM either doesn't allow them, or he does and the campaign gets destroyed. It's kind of like an extremely lethal pathogen; the host doesn't live long enough to pass on the affliction, and the pathogen dies off alone. So yeah, I think your opinion is way off base. You are entitled to it, of course.
Cyanide300 03-13-07, 06:34 PM	Casters are not better than other classes in every way. There are so many ways to negate the effects of a caster's power. Anti-magic fields, dispel magic, spell-resistance, dead magic zones, rods of absorbtion, spell-turning, energy immunity, magic immunity, and so on. If casters in your campaign overshadow every other class on a regular basis, it's because your DM or the players are incompotent, not because the rules are flawed. The balance of power in a game of D&D lies squarely on the shoulders of the DM, not the books. That's the benefit of the table top RPG. If you don't like the rules, change them.
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-13-07, 07:44 PM	Anti-magic fields, dispel magic…spell-turning I don't recall any non-casters gaining access to these abilities. So you are basically pitting casters against casters. How does that not make caster better? spell-resistance…energy immunity How often do players gain access to this without spells or magic items? Both of which you need caster for. Energy immunity does crop up in some PrC classes, I'll admit. dead magic zones This is a DM call. Players don't get to decide this. rods of absorbtion This is a good suggestion, as it can be used (I think) by non-casters. magic immunity When is this given out to PCs? Why should it only be the DM who gets to determine how powerful casters are? The hope of fixing the system is because some of us would like that as we play we can come up with, on our own, ways to shine. And shine in any class we choose. If casters in your campaign overshadow every other class on a regular basis, it's because your DM or the players are incompotent, not because the rules are flawed. Not everyone can be great at creating their own balance. Calling them incompetant is not warranted. The balance of power in a game of D&D lies squarely on the shoulders of the DM, not the books. That's the benefit of the table top RPG. If you don't like the rules, change them. Some of us don't know how to change the rules.
Karak_Nechot 03-13-07, 08:03 PM	And some of us are smart enough to realize that if the game was designed better, there wouldn't be a NEED to change the rules. Just a disclaimer: I love D&D. I run or play usually about once a week, sometimes more. I know a great deal about its merits and failings. In my opinion, the game is slowly improving, and problems are being fixed, sometime rapidly, sometimes very, very slowly *coughfightercough*. I think the developers do a decent job most of the time. I also think they could do better, but I'm not one to scream over it. It's only a game.
AllisterH 03-13-07, 08:17 PM	Relating this to the actual board, I think WOTC realizes this. PHB II and Tome of Battle have both made melee classes "flashy" AND "effective" just like your typical spellcaster. Furthermore, the recent focus on the polymorph school and its fixes plus the new arcane base classes like the warlock, warmage, and dread necromancer show that the system ITSELF is fine. It is only certain spells (basically 9th level and the alter self-polymorph-shapechange) which need work. There is a SIGNIFICANT jump in power from 8th to 9th level spells as compared to say 5th to 6th level spells. If, for example, you restrict your arcane caster to just the sorceror, the limitations of its flexibility make it so that your melee classes don't feel overshadowed. The divine Casters? *Shrug*. Those need work and I honestly don't see how WOTC can make them both attractive yet NOT overpowered sicne no one wants to be just the walking bandaid.
dragynson1 03-13-07, 08:56 PM	On thing i did sort of like about the complete mage is many of the prestige classes didnt have an armor/weapon profiency listing. that should be standard for all prestige classes. I woudl like to see the core become MORE comprhensive and ex= full spontaneous casting should be both divine and arcane, Treunames shoudl be included and fitted into the system not an entire new thing. I would like to see more of a basic building block system EX= everyone starts here at first level you get to choose this and this and this. I hate to say this but ' the skills and powers" books were a step in that direction until you realized the cleric could do anything better than anyone. I suggest start with a BAse Race, and build your class via point buy system. EX if you want to be a caster you spend points and get some abilities along those lines. or , represnt the archtypes warrior caster scoundrel. and build off those. with those three things and a point buy c;ass building system you could make nearly everything that has been published. new books would be needed still when new abilties were designed I think all classes should be able to creat magic items, non spellcasters have to be master craftsmen dc set real high and the xp cost should be doubled for them. MAgic is in everything and everyone, spellcasters are just better at using it. I also think a some of the skills need to be combined. somethign along the lines of the feats that grant +2 /+2. Ex hide/movesilently should be sneak I think some skills need to be seriously toned down, ex=diplomacy can break game I love the idea of prestige classes, and i realize its all about selling more and more books butmost of the new core classes shouldve been covered with feats instead of uber powered in that area. Ex= warmage I think each class should have 3 prestige classes tailored for that class in core. Abilties you can gain only by meeting prereqs and taking levels of those classes Ex there is not a single prc in the dmg for barbarians/fighters/druids, and only one for monks and rangers. the duelist is so underpowered and crappily designed its pathetic. The dwarven defender is good, but thats for LG dwarves not fighters. every other class requires spell casting or gives spellcasting. And feat chains shouldve been made instead of the flavorless combination classes. Ex Battle mage instead of Eldritch knight. I havent been able to do much with spells vrs mellee yet the. I may have to bite the bullet on this one, magic is 90% of fantasy role playing and it makes sense that the ones who use it best can be the most powerful. The tome of battel does add a lot but a lot of that is also magic. Which really is ok but sort of hurt the archtype too. I think a lot of it shouldve been more physical instead of magical instead of new classes , new systems Feats and special attack feats shouldve been used. I realize these ideas would completely redesign the system. but to balance it youw ould have to
D1Tremere 03-13-07, 11:58 PM	You know, it's things like this that define irony. You can't spell 'pretty' or 'opinion' and you used 'then' when you should have used 'than'. Way to show you're a jackass with nothing of merit to say. Or as you might put it, "Weigh to sho your a jakass with nothing ov mert...murit...wurth to sey." :rolleyes: As for your concern, Orion, I don't think it is as much of one as the character optimization boards would let you think. In an actual game where the DM doesn't cater solely to the casters, the fighters and other melee characters have plenty of fun. It is all about challenging each and every member of the party, and doing so as a team rather than a group of individuals. Spelling errors happen to us all. Not the same thing as words which make no sense.
D1Tremere 03-14-07, 12:04 AM	Please, don't answer like this guy. I need motivations, I hate people that just say "you are wrong because I'm right". And I apologize if I may look mean, but remember that english is not my mother language and sometimes I may use some unproper experssion. Thanks. You want more of a reason, fine. I played a level 20 dwarven barbarian at the Gen Con tough man contest and trashed every level 20 spellcaster I came across, so I'd say spellcasters are not more powerfull hands down then melee characters. As for balance and realism, they don't go well in games of any type. The more people stress about these things, the more the game sucks. I would also add that if the game truly needed these things, it wouldn't be selling so very very well right now. So I say your openion is wrong as all the facts I see agree with me. As for all the posters who wanted to be rude when all I did was say my piece, you know just what part of my rosy red D20 you can kiss.
Kojiro James 03-14-07, 12:06 AM	Y'know, you're right... arcane spellcasters are too powerful. We need to nerf them down so they're easier to beat. Possibly we need a d4 hit die for the vast majority of them. A glass jaw like that should ensure tha..... Oh wait. Nevermind.
HomebrewedMonster 03-14-07, 12:16 AM	A lot of the problem comes from selfish players. Instead of the Wizard always buffing himself, he should be buffing his allies. To many people missed this response.
ZeronHitaro 03-14-07, 12:20 AM	There's really a blunt and simple solution for this. And yes this will come off as harsh without intended due to spending all my Tact Points for the day. -Shut up, quit crying, then once you dry your tears go make your own sub system that suits your tastes. Everyone has their own tastes and ideas. What's balanced for you will broken for someone else, and vise-versa. You think someone like George Lucas would care if you went on a forum and whined for days on end how you thought his endings sucked and how you thought the Jedi code of order should really be? No. However you are more than welcome to go out there, develop your own story and rules using Star Wars as a base, and then sell the novel for a small profet to may other SW fan boys who love such things. Same logic applies here to D&D. Go make your own rules, give it to your friends (or sell, your choice), and enjoy your own system without broadcasting your woes to the world. End of discussion for me.
Therese404 03-14-07, 12:23 AM	3.5 is more then enough, in fact its 2 much. Yes I really understand the realistic mindset. I really get that. But if you want that sort of detail your not going to get much actual game time. I really like 3.5. But I also Like Classic First Edition even better. That's just me & what works fo me might not for you. I personally think 3.5 is about more choise, more options, more books, more ways in which you can mold your own game. I don't think a more complex system would be a better idea. Keep it simple, keep the new blood rolling in & keep it inexpensive. Building your own stuff & playing. Telling old war stories of past adventures? Getting together with your mates on a week end & relax-getting away from the harsh preasures of the day to day world? Cheers guys Therese
Archangel62 03-14-07, 12:26 AM	Realism means comparatively little to me, what does matter is internal consistency. As long as the rules mesh in a semi-reliable fashion and the gameworld doesn't hiccup as I read through the rules and systems then I am perfectly happy with the system.
0rion79 03-14-07, 03:47 AM	Well, thanks to everybody (except some very few troll that came here to start a flame) for your opinions. I still keep my point of view, but prehaps things are not so drastic as they could look to me before even if, I think, a lot depends from your players and your kind of adventure. Prehaps you never met players like mine, that are all from different allignment and basically fight against each other in every game session. Still, I think that some easy additions or fixes would make the game even better, while, for real perfection, the game should completely been revised in its core, prehaps for a 4.0 edition. And, about reality, forgive me if I may look arrogant, but I think that you players, that say that reality is not important, would be even happier than now if could have BOTH a game that offers greatly balanced rules AND a very strong internal consistency, with a care for details about the elements that do exist in real life too (ex, animals: see my animal compendium thread). Thanks again!
Seeker95 03-14-07, 09:17 AM	Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 rules are not enough to make our most beloved RPG balanced enough.First, I do not have a problem with balance in the 3.5 ruleset. Since I do not have the problem that is your post pre-supposes, the rest of your post is rather irrelevant to the rest of my reply. The only "problem" with the 3.5 ruleset (and 3e in general) is that it has mollycoddled the new generation of players that (collectively, not necessarily individually) seem to need every possible factor of the game spelled out and spoon fed to them. I am surprised there are not yet rules for when your PC has to go to the bathroom, what happens if s/he goes too long without a bathroom break, and what the risks are in attempting to defecate in an unsanitary environment. If third edition / 3.5 has any "problem", it is that Third Edition is too ruled.
Squirrelloid 03-14-07, 09:47 AM	Spellcasters are overpowered. I completely agree. The problem is not easily placed on any one (or even a couple) spells however. I mean, I could generate a page worth of problematic PHB spells alone - including Planar Binding, Fabricate, Polymorph et al., Gate, etc.... But the problems with spells that make casters overpowered is hard to fix. Some spells are even overpowered because of their interactions with other game mechanics (Charm Monster combined with Diplomacy). Effectively, there are two options: (1) Bring the other classes up to the wizard's/cleric's/druid's power level. This is the easy option because it requires monkeying with the fewest mechanics - all you have to do is adjust the other classes and perhaps the feat system. Frank and K have already done excellent work on this (Dungeonomicon, Races of War, etc...). (2) Bring the casters down in power. This is really problematic. (a) go through the spell list and prune or re-write ~60% of all spells ever written (ugg). (b) The monsters in the monster manual assume access to that kind of spellpower. Many of them also use spells on a regular basis. Depowering casters will require rebalancing *all* CRs, monkeying with ~50% of monster stat-blocks, and so forth. Basically, rebalancing downwards is a *lot* of work. I don't have time to do that, even as houserules, which leaves my options as DM as either "anything goes" (in which case everyone should play casters or use Frank and K's work) or "no primary casters allowed". And (2) is less of a problem for me than most people because *I never use CR* to determine what an appropriate challenge is - i use instinct born of 15 years of DMing. I still don't have the time to work my way through the *entire spell-list* in the PHB, much less the splatbooks. So hey, if WotC wanted to pay me to go through the spell-list, the monster list, and otherwise work on rebalancing the game down in power, great. I could do it. But unless it involves a paycheck, rebalancing the game upwards is the only solution that's viable.
johnhansen 03-14-07, 11:15 AM	So hey, if WotC wanted to pay me to go through the spell-list, the monster list, and otherwise work on rebalancing the game down in power, great. I could do it. But unless it involves a paycheck, rebalancing the game upwards is the only solution that's viable. No pay check would ever come for doing that. The upward movement in power to any game is inevitable. Once long ago in D&D if you wanted a spell caster you were a elf, then some one wined to their DM "but I want to be a human spell caster" and AD&D was born, Then someone wined to their DM they wanted non-weapon proficiencies and 2ND AD&D was born. Then TSR killed it self and a company who knew way more about giving customers what they wanted created 3rd. And giving customers what they want is how we got in this mess of upward over poweredness. If you watch movies from before lets say 1977 you will more than likely notice how weak most heroes really are but a movie made today will more than likely have a hero who can fight all day and not even have messed up hair. I am not saying I don't watch and enjoy the movies of today. I am just saying that if we all expect a hero to shoot fire out his ass and never die then the next addition of D&D will give us that for all characters and have a special class that gives your character a frost ass blast. Now all humor and vulgarity aside, D&D is a game and like any game its supplements will try to out do the one before. Each new player wants something cool like he saw in that movie last week and many players want to try something new like a half beholder barbarian with level dips in hemroid mage and blood robot assassin. Oh and by the way spell caster are not more powerful than fighters if you up the amount of encounters in each day that has encounters so they have to worry about using all their spells to fast and getting killed around sunset, because fighters can go all day long with just one sword.
Dexter_Blacktyde 03-14-07, 11:27 AM	It should be noted that fighters may be able to go all day (ahem...), but it's not like they were invincible walls - at the end of the encounter they look the part. The wizard usually gets protected by his allies. DB
CCS 03-14-07, 12:04 PM	I find the longer I play the less I care about the rules. My players, with one exception, feel the same way. And, I know the rules extremely well. Nowadays we make up classes, change races and weaponry, and so on on the fly. We all have a goal of making a kind of story (not one you'd write a novel about), with mixes of roleplaying and fun combat. New combat scenarios are the most fun, and it's easier to make such things if you throw a lot of rules out the window, and build a thematically appropriate encounter that's appropriately balanced for the players. Basically, we've broken the rules almost down to core d20. We're even working on a spellcasting system to replace the spell slot system (we want to emulate the "maneuvers" system from Tome of Battle), though that's coming along slowly. Honestly I've never understood what the hang-up on rules "loopholes" is. They're pointless and they never see action in a game for long...the DM either doesn't allow them, or he does and the campaign gets destroyed. It's kind of like an extremely lethal pathogen; the host doesn't live long enough to pass on the affliction, and the pathogen dies off alone. So yeah, I think your opinion is way off base. You are entitled to it, of course. This pretty well covers my own opinion. Yes, I acknowledge that each edition of this game has some inherant mechanical flaws & oddities. And 4th ed, whenever it comes around, will have some as well. But in my nearly 30 years of play (as both DM & PC) most of them have remained only as hypothetical extremes/abstractions. Those that did/do manage to creep into our games? Most of those tend to occur with novice players/DMs in about their first 3 years of gaming. (Unfortunately that's about the attention span of a great many players.....) But eventually you learn how to tell/play better stories & the mechanical flaws cease to matter all that much. As to the spell-casters always out classing the other character types (especially the ftr etc)? If this is happening then you've really got only the DM AND the players to blame. .The Dm for not writing/running properly balanced adventures & maybe mismanaging the treasures, .The players usually for playing from a solely #'s driven mindset instead of any actual attempt at role-playing. If you want #s, go play EQ, WoW, etc. But if you want something better....
lastknightleft 03-14-07, 01:38 PM	Honestly I think the main problem isn't so much the balance between characters. A straight fighter no matter how powerful is supposed to fear/respect powerful spellcasters and people who are blessed by the gods themselves. The problem I think arises from the fact that its as easy to master the varied subtleties of all arcane might as it is to master a single weapon. Yes a twentieth level spellcaster SHOULD be more powerful than a twentieth level Fighter, but he shouldn't be able to get to the same "level" of power as quickly.
Daydreamer 03-14-07, 01:39 PM	didnt read whole thread, but. I am one of the few people who cant wait for a fourth edition. I especially cant wait to see them fix the major screw ups like Epic levels, and the dieties and demigods.
Egres 03-14-07, 01:45 PM	First, I do not have a problem with balance in the 3.5 ruleset. Since I do not have the problem that is your post pre-supposes, the rest of your post is rather irrelevant. Sounds rude, doesn't it? Maybe you might want to elaborate and explain why you don't think that casters can easily overshadow many other base classes, like rogues, fighters and such.
Gondor 03-14-07, 03:10 PM	I'd just like to add that there is no serious balance problem in 3.5 that an open beta test wouldn't have prevented. I really hope Wizards does this when they release another edition.
Seeker95 03-14-07, 03:32 PM	Sounds rude, doesn't it?A little. Rude was not my intention. The sentence should have finished with "to the rest of my reply." I will go there and edit appropriately.Maybe you might want to elaborate and explain why you don't think that casters can easily overshadow many other base classes, like rogues, fighters and such.I never claimed casters can't overshadow many other base classes like rogues, fighters and such. I claimed that I don't have a problem with it. As DM, it is my job to make sure that ever PC in my game has opportunities to shine and opportunities to quake in their boots. The rules cannot do that for me. A caster has weaknesses. I must play to those if there is a caster in my game. A fighter has weaknesses, too. I must play to those if there is a fighter in my game. That the weaknesses of a fighter are very different than the weaknesses of a caster simply means that the way I play against them must be different as well. The same goes for the strengths.
Egres 03-14-07, 03:59 PM	As DM, it is my job to make sure that ever PC in my game has opportunities to shine and opportunities to quake in their boots. The rules cannot do that for me. A caster has weaknesses. I must play to those if there is a caster in my game. A fighter has weaknesses, too. I must play to those if there is a fighter in my game. Unfortunately casters seem to have the ability to fix their weaknesses, while fighters can't. Not to mention that a caster can easily substitute a fighter with his spells, while the opposite is impossibile. However, I would be sincerely glad if you would share with us your way of DM this issue.
a_psh 03-14-07, 04:05 PM	Here's a big ol' random shotgun blast of responses to various posts: First off, I don't give a :censored: about reality, realism, anything like that. That's just my opinion, but I think if we're going so far as to include various fantasy elements we might as well go all the way and not care about "real" things.There's something to be said for a system that makes a gritty swordfight feel "real" to us -- or, at the very least, a system that doesn't get in the way when we want to narrate that swordfight happening in a quasi-realistic way. And there's everything to be said for characters that feel like real people rather than cardboard cutouts. 2 - I agree for other notes, but I want you to remember the origins of all RPGs: they are born from psycological simulations of real life that help the actors to better understand meccanics into realistic scenarios, to learn how to deal with daily problems without the stress of daily life but with the help and comfort from the play atmosphere.Err, not quite. D&D came straight from tabletop wargames. Roleplaying in psychology is an independent concept. Psychologists have tried using games like D&D for therapy, and some have designed pen-and-paper RPGs as a side hobby, but the two are not directly related. Most of the influence psychological roleplaying has on pen-and-paper RPGs is indirect, inherited when a lot of "freeform" roleplaying concepts made it into tabletop games. In other words, when rules are good, a player must be able to "see" the whole scene in his/her mind: if there are black holes in his view, something that he just can't imagine, then rules sucks.Designers talk about this fairly often. Usually they say something like "every rule in an RPG should help the players create the shared imagined fiction." It is, indeed, very important (though not enough to make a good game by itself, of course). I'm actually looking towards the new edition of Star Wars d20 (Star Wars: Saga Edition, due for release in May). There are a lot of major changes: no skill points, sliding condition scale, completely revised 'force' system, chasses rebuilt from the bottom up. It looks very interesting, and it wouldn't shock me if in the long term it proved to be a testing ground for material that could eventually appear in the fabled 4.0It sounds fascinating. I'm hoping they do more than simplify D&D. I'd really like to see a broader reward system, less restrictive classes (and, no, I don't mean more multiclassing), tighter integration between all the little subsystems of the game, and more freedom to narrate cool scenes while the rules help you along. Something like this (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/tsoy2/book1--rulebook.html) would be really cool for a Star Wars game. I find the longer I play the less I care about the rules. My players, with one exception, feel the same way. And, I know the rules extremely well.Forgive me for sounding a bit arrogant here, but my conclusion is that the majority of D&D's rules are superfluous. They can help you create consensus about imagined events in play, but, once the group has been together for more than, like, 2 sessions, most of the rules are just plain irrelevant as far as driving the game forward goes. The balance of power in a game of D&D lies squarely on the shoulders of the DM, not the books. That's the benefit of the table top RPG. If you don't like the rules, change them.A good game doesn't require heavy retooling. If you put everything on the GM, what use is a game designer? Keep it simple, keep the new blood rolling in & keep it inexpensive.Good advice.
Chrono Nexus 03-14-07, 04:21 PM	In parties where a cleric isn't a member or when healing items are unavailable, primary spell casters can become overpowered. Since there is no cleric, the party as a whole must rest more- which allows the primary spell caster to nova most combats. If a DM didn't gauge encounters to make up for this drawback in healing, wiz's would end up having little relevance after the first two or at most three combats. Lots of little encounters eat up resources much faster, especially when the players have been taught that they don't have to hold back. If you keep this in mind, you'll realize that spell casters aren't so broken that their power is incomparable to a fighter.
d20diceroller 03-14-07, 04:23 PM	A lot of the problem comes from selfish players. Instead of the Wizard always buffing himself, he should be buffing his allies. 'Nuff said.
High Octane 03-14-07, 04:44 PM	'Nuff said. Which brings me as to why Haste is a DAMN good spell, just not good for the person casting it. I mean giving your allies +30 movement, +1 to hit, +1 AC and an extra attack at full BAB? And by the time you can cast it you can use it on all your allies with one spell. (5 people) One of the problems people tend to have is that people think that a 1 on 1 duel between 2 classes is a good measure of their balance. WRONG!
Chrono Nexus 03-14-07, 04:52 PM	Which brings me as to why Haste is a DAMN good spell, just not good for the person casting it. I mean giving your allies +30 movement, +1 to hit, +1 AC and an extra attack at full BAB? And by the time you can cast it you can use it on all your allies with one spell. (5 people) One of the problems people tend to have is that people think that a 1 on 1 duel between 2 classes is a good measure of their balance. WRONG! I completely agree, only, I think Slow has more utility and stronger effects. Wiz's shouldn't be the ones concentrating on dealing damage. They should be the ones that use their spells to impede their opponents to the point that they have little choice but to give up and die.
High Octane 03-14-07, 05:08 PM	I completely agree, only, I think Slow has more utility and stronger effects. Wiz's shouldn't be the ones concentrating on dealing damage. They should be the ones that use their spells to impede their opponents to the point that they have little choice but to give up and die. Which is why enfeebling rays and such would be great if there actually existed monsters with bad fort saves.
Seeker95 03-14-07, 05:55 PM	Unfortunately casters seem to have the ability to fix their weaknesses, while fighters can't.You might be placing far too much faith in casters and far too little in fighters.Not to mention that a caster can easily substitute a fighter with his spells, while the opposite is impossible.This is a cooperative game for 4-6 people. A fighter and a caster are likely on the same side. They work together, whether the caster can pretend to be a fighter or not. If the party lacks one or the other, that is a decision of the individual players. The DM must accommodate and be flexible enough for such a situation.
PoeticJustice 03-14-07, 06:00 PM	A lot of the problem comes from selfish players. Instead of the Wizard always buffing himself, he should be buffing his allies. I disagree, this a DM'ing problem. It's really no different than the party bard who annoys the rest of the party by talking to NPCs for an hour and a half while the rest twiddle their thumbs. Aside from good, self-conscious Dungeon Mastering there is no fix to this problem. Seriously, this has never been a problem in my games. Doesn't anyone use sneak attack, high save monks and rangers or gee, I dunno, spell resistance? A CR 8 Mind Flayer has SR (or PR, depending on how cool you are) 25. That means a Level 8 caster has a flat 80% chance of failing to do affect the monster. I'll go and agree that the system is perfect, but a new edition isn't going to fix the problem. I reiterate: Aside from good, self-conscious Dungeon Mastering there is no fix to this problem. EDIT: Forgive, I only got through one page before I replied. I stand on everything I wrote here, but a simplification of D&D would be a Godsend. I teach at least 10 new players a year and its a pretty steep learning curve, when you think about it. Teaching them how to level up is especially hard for me.
Squirrelloid 03-14-07, 06:02 PM	I completely agree, only, I think Slow has more utility and stronger effects. Wiz's shouldn't be the ones concentrating on dealing damage. They should be the ones that use their spells to impede their opponents to the point that they have little choice but to give up and die. I agree. Haste is pretty low on my priority list for a wizard or other arcanist. Slow, however, is at the top. Because reducing your opponents to standard actions only is amazing. Anyone play Angband/Nethack/etc... and know what pillar-dancing is? Slow makes that possible. And that's fricking awesome.
Squirrelloid 03-14-07, 06:05 PM	I disagree, this a DM'ing problem. It's really no different than the party bard who annoys the rest of the party by talking to NPCs for an hour and a half while the rest twiddle their thumbs. Aside from good, self-conscious Dungeon Mastering there is no fix to this problem. Seriously, this has never been a problem in my games. Doesn't anyone use sneak attack, high save monks and rangers or gee, I dunno, spell resistance? A CR 8 Mind Flayer has SR (or PR, depending on how cool you are) 25. That means a Level 8 caster has a flat 80% chance of failing to do affect the monster. Only if he casts a spell that *allows* SR. And why would any caster worth his salt do that? Yes, if we assume the player playing the caster is stupid, casters aren't overpowered (compared to intelligently built and played fighters). It strikes me that requiring some players to be stupid and others not to be in order to keep the game balanced is bad design, plain and simple.
Egres 03-14-07, 07:08 PM	You might be placing far too much faith in casters and far too little in fighters. Maybe. And maybe not. Give us your two cents. This is a cooperative game for 4-6 people. A fighter and a caster are likely on the same side. They work together, whether the caster can pretend to be a fighter or not. Not all D&D "teams" work like a happy family. Not to mention that you are admitting that the problex exists, and it's up to the DM to fix it.
Chrono Nexus 03-14-07, 07:10 PM	Which is why enfeebling rays and such would be great if there actually existed monsters with bad fort saves. Bah, forget enfeeblement. Web, grease, obscuring mist are the great low levels spells. Combine a well placed Web spell with a druid Entange, and watch your opponents writhe before you slaughter them.;)
Seeker95 03-14-07, 10:26 PM	Not to mention that you are admitting that the problem exists, and it's up to the DM to fix it.I am not admitting a problem exists. I am saying that it is not a problem. There is nothing for a DM to "fix". The DM simply has to do his job.
Squirrelloid 03-14-07, 10:51 PM	I am not admitting a problem exists. I am saying that it is not a problem. There is nothing for a DM to "fix". The DM simply has to do his job. Hello Oberoni Fallacy.
PoeticJustice 03-14-07, 11:49 PM	Only if he casts a spell that *allows* SR. And why would any caster worth his salt do that? Yes, if we assume the player playing the caster is stupid, casters aren't overpowered (compared to intelligently built and played fighters). It strikes me that requiring some players to be stupid and others not to be in order to keep the game balanced is bad design, plain and simple. How many problem spells are going to qualify for that? Acid Arrow? Polymorph? The orbs? I don't have Spell Compendium with me so I don't know, but I don't assume the caster is stupid. I assume he isn't looking at my notes, the monster manual, or metagaming. Given these conditions, I find it unlikely that he has something to blow my encounter out of the water, and even if he does, the genius-level Mind Flayer readies an action to Dispel Psionics which, using transparency, is darn good odds of disrupting whatever he's got. And the Oberoni Fallacy doesn't apply here: there is absolutely no way to correct this issue through superior design. The only way casters become an issue to game balance is through poor DM'ing, and the only way to correct or prevent it is through the opposite.
Vaelan 03-15-07, 12:28 AM	This is not the only problem, the point is that usually spellcasters can do better what is supposed to be other classes' specialization: a cleric may fight better than a fighter or barbarian, a wizard may sneak better than a monk or a rogue and so on. It is not a matter of being selfish or not, just the fact that they are more powerful and they become more essential than they other party members, that soon or later will begin to feel useless if the DM does not fill that difference with magic items. It requires substantial investments of the party's /day resources to accomplish any of this. Why isn't the DM taxing resources sufficiently? Also, consider that none of this comes remotely close to being an efficient strategy. Cleric uses a fifth-level spell slot to cast Righteous Might, becoming a poor imitation of a Fighter starting next round. Wizard uses a fourth-level spell slot to cast Polymorph, turning the Fighter into an unstoppable killing machine starting right now. Not to mention that you are admitting that the problex exists, and it's up to the DM to fix it. That is by no means an admission that a problem exists. It doesn't matter if a caster can pretend to be a Fighter because it is not the best course of action. It is horribly inefficient in terms of resources (time, spells) and is markedly less effective. The fact is, it isn't a problem with the system because it is not an efficient course of action. This could only be a problem with a player, as for it to be problematic, a player would have to be choosing an inefficient course of action for the sole purpose of decreasing another PC's ability to contribute to the group's efforts to overcome encounters, which may come with decreased enjoyment for that player. Hello Oberoni Fallacy. That "fallacy" is a relic of purely theoretical discussion. Seeker was speaking to his game, at the request of others, not to the universally irrelevant standards used to maintain an objective discussion on these boards. As such, the fallacy does not apply. Do not cite the fallacy if you do not understand it.
Squirrelloid 03-15-07, 12:48 AM	How many problem spells are going to qualify for that? Acid Arrow? Polymorph? The orbs? I don't have Spell Compendium with me so I don't know, but I don't assume the caster is stupid. I assume he isn't looking at my notes, the monster manual, or metagaming. Given these conditions, I find it unlikely that he has something to blow my encounter out of the water, and even if he does, the genius-level Mind Flayer readies an action to Dispel Psionics which, using transparency, is darn good odds of disrupting whatever he's got. (1) So, a wizard has that huge int score and crappy class skills - guess where those points are going: Knowledges. He knows the things have SR because he makes his kno(whatever) check, plain and simple. (2) There are lots of no-SR spells. Like Black Tentacles. Which will totally **** the mindflayer. (3) IIRC (MM not on me at the moment), the Mindflayer actually expects to have less intelligence than an 8th level wizard. (4) The Mind-Flayer used Dispel Psionics. He just wasted an action that might have been more productively used. Alternately, he didn't use Dispel Psionics because he's *grappled* in the Black Tentacles. Oops. (And yes, I'd be packing 1-2 of these on any day I was adventuring as a wizard at that level). And the Oberoni Fallacy doesn't apply here: there is absolutely no way to correct this issue through superior design. The only way casters become an issue to game balance is through poor DM'ing, and the only way to correct or prevent it is through the opposite. Fact: The RAW is imbalanced such that casters are overpowered. "Good DMing" consists of houseruling sufficient material such that this becomes manageable. Whenever houserules are required, saying there is no problem is an Oberoni fallacy, because otherwise no house rule would be needed. There are rules to the game. It is a reasonable expectation to expect those rules to be balanced. Unless the DM carefully reads all the rulebooks he intends to use, or routinely browses the CO boards, it is *unreasonable* for him to understand all the ways the rules can break. Some of them are sufficiently subtle that he might not even realize he was letting things through he shouldn't - and they can and will blow-up on him. Therefore, saying that imbalance doesn't matter because "good DMing" (read: houserules) prevents it doesn't make the problem *in the rules* go away. Just in your game because you changed the rules. (And heaven help you if you can't dedicate a substantial amount of time to knowing and understanding those rules). That "fallacy" is a relic of purely theoretical discussion. Seeker was speaking to his game, at the request of others, not to the universally irrelevant standards used to maintain an objective discussion on these boards. As such, the fallacy does not apply. Do not cite the fallacy if you do not understand it. (1) This is a theoretical discussion. To whit, its a discussion about the general balance of the 3.5 system. Any balance discussion is a theoretical discussion. (2) The Oberoni Fallacy is not an "relic", its the statement that it is fallacious to admit a problem by providing a fix, and then call it no problem. In this case "Good DMing" is the "fix", where "Good DMing" = houserule out the stuff you don't like. Yes, that might fix the balance problems in the system, but its still fixing a problem. Therefore a problem exists, so you can't just say no problem exists. (He says the DM has to do his job. If part of that violates "follow the rules", then the DM is changing stuff because it doesn't work - hence, there exists a problem with the rules. To pretend otherwise is sophistry). (3) Seeker was not speaking just of his game. To whit: I am not admitting a problem exists. I am saying that it is not a problem. There is nothing for a DM to "fix". The DM simply has to do his job. That is speaking in the general case, about general DMing. Not just his game. (4) I understand the fallacy perfectly well, thank you. Perhaps you should review it?
Always-Late 03-15-07, 12:55 AM	That is by no means an admission that a problem exists. It doesn't matter if a caster can pretend to be a Fighter because it is not the best course of action. It is horribly inefficient in terms of resources (time, spells) and is markedly less effective.Yeah, why would he spend time trying to be better at hitting stuff than the fighter when he could instead be just all-around better at everything else? Polymorphing the Fighter is quite useful, but it's rather sad when the fighter needs a caster's help to become somewhat halfway on par with them.
PoeticJustice 03-15-07, 01:53 AM	First I'd like to thank you for bulleting your points. It makes them easier to address. (1) So, a wizard has that huge int score and crappy class skills - guess where those points are going: Knowledges. He knows the things have SR because he makes his kno(whatever) check, plain and simple. Have you ever had a player who took Knowledge (Dungeoneering)? I haven't. I don't even think I've ever even taken that skill myself. Therefore I find this occurrence unlikely however, if the party identifies the critter, good for them. That's smart playing. (2) There are lots of no-SR spells. Like Black Tentacles. Which will totally **** the mindflayer. Not quite that easy. Mind Flayers have levitation and strike using a variety of pawns before revealing themselves. You can't assume the monster will be vulnerable to that spell, or any spell for that matter. Mind Flayers also have D-Door, so they're really only a successful Concentration check away from being out of the tentacles. See my answer to point four for further analysis of this argument. (3) IIRC (MM not on me at the moment), the Mindflayer actually expects to have less intelligence than an 8th level wizard. That depends. If you're group uses high-power stats, then yes, you could easily beat the Mind Flayer's INT 19. However, this is irrelevant. Statistics are a way to represent the mind flayer's cold, alien, calculating mind. Even if the wizard is technically smarter, the intelligence of the illithid is still a threat. (4) The Mind-Flayer used Dispel Psionics. He just wasted an action that might have been more productively used. Alternately, he didn't use Dispel Psionics because he's *grappled* in the Black Tentacles. Oops. (And yes, I'd be packing 1-2 of these on any day I was adventuring as a wizard at that level). Now you're progressing into an unlikely and irrelevant hypothetical. I've already stated why this tactic won't necessarily guarantee success in point 2. Now let me assure you that, even if the tactic succeeds, it still doesn't indicate poor game balance. The CR system is designed so that an equal challenge consumes 20-25 percent of your immediately available resources. If you want to use one of three 4th level spells against the mind flayer, that's fine. You just won't have that resource later, regardless of the outcome of your attack. I see no problem with players using the resources at their disposal in a non-degenerate as is the case and if a caster wants to use all his powerful magic against one opponent for whatever reason, he may very well defeat any opponent of his level. But only that opponent, and later, when the Dragon or whatever attacks, he might feel very stupid attacking it with rays of frost. Fact: The RAW is imbalanced such that casters are overpowered. "Good DMing" consists of houseruling sufficient material such that this becomes manageable. Whenever houserules are required, saying there is no problem is an Oberoni fallacy, because otherwise no house rule would be needed. As I have said earlier, I have never had a problem with unbalanced casters. I had more difficulty with a spiked chain fighter than his sorcerer and cleric buddies, and that campaign went from levels 1 to 15. Due to this, I do not accept that D&D 3.5 is unbalanced. I have never implemented a houserule against my players' favor (this includes banning material, bythe way), so I don't know where you draw that argument from. Like I said, the wagon isn't broke on my end, so I needn't fix it. What I say is that a good Dungeon Master makes sure his campaign is challenging for everyone, and if that means exhausting the caster of their spells, then do it. If it means using High-SR monsters, then do it. If you need grappling, evasion, energy resistance, or whatever, do it. There are tools written into the system that challenge spellcasters. Therefore, no house rule is required and the Oberoni Fallacy does not apply. There are rules to the game. It is a reasonable expectation to expect those rules to be balanced. Unless the DM carefully reads all the rulebooks he intends to use, or routinely browses the CO boards, it is *unreasonable* for him to understand all the ways the rules can break. Some of them are sufficiently subtle that he might not even realize he was letting things through he shouldn't - and they can and will blow-up on him. Therefore, saying that imbalance doesn't matter because "good DMing" (read: houserules) prevents it doesn't make the problem *in the rules* go away. Just in your game because you changed the rules. (And heaven help you if you can't dedicate a substantial amount of time to knowing and understanding those rules). Why shouldn't a DM carefully read the books he's gonna use? Do you really think its a "house rule" when a DM states that certain supplemental materials can't be used in conjunction with one another or at all? I thought we were arguing about how powerful wizards got in high level play. I see now that you probably don't think the degenerate material generated on CO should be allowed to run rampant in a game, but surely you don't think there is an onus on the DM to allow anything and everything in his campaign? DMG states that it is perfectly acceptable to state "in my world..." and complete that statement with any clause he wants. Therefore, the rules are written with the expectation that they will be inspected and possibly altered by those implementing them into their games. Assuming otherwise is foolish. I won't comment on the arguments further down the line because they seem to be intended for another. However, in general you seem to think that the DM suffers some sort of limitation to his power in order to satisfy the inherent fairness of the RAW. In reality, nothing could be further from truth!
Squirrelloid 03-15-07, 02:14 AM	PoeticJustice: There's really only one point that really matters here. Its not about whether or not I can sufficiently alter the rules such that I can run a game. Its about an expectation of reasonably balanced rules. Its true that I can houserule stuff away. But I shouldn't have to in order to play the game. I've also been DMing for 15 years. I know what I'm doing. I made 2nd edition work for me. I make 3.x work for me. But there are lots of less experienced DMs out there. They should be able to buy a quality product which is playable out of the box without having to write out flowcharts of rules interactions. The game is not playable out of the box, and no one starts life as a "Good DM". To get that far one needs experience. Imbalanced products hurt the new players and DMs the most, because sometimes they might be fine, but other times they might discover one of those loopholes large enough to drive a truck through - and the rules tell them its ok! A quick list of problem spells: Fabricate Polymorph et al. Planar Binding Charm X (combined with Diplomacy) Gate Scry+Teleport Contingency Wish as an SLA AMF Astral Projection Simulacrum I could list more. Its actually a pretty long list. Some of these are problematic because they lead to areas of the rules where there is no answer. Some of these are problematic because they vastly change how the game works. Some of these are problematic because it requires Language:legalese to even figure out what it does! (Polymorph, i'm looking at you). Some of these are problematic because they generate free wealth. And thats before even getting to spells which lead to class-balance problems. That list is even longer, because all these spells are on it, plus a host of others. And I haven't even stepped outside of Core yet. There most definitely is a problem. The fact that some of us can houserule it away, and that some of them won't come up in our games because we know better, doesn't change the fact that those problems exist in the rules *and shouldn't*. The DM has the right to change things in his game, that doesn't excuse mechanics which don't work or work in a manner which leads to brokenness. And I have a question for you: What the hell was that mage in your campaign doing? Casting fireballs?
Egres 03-15-07, 04:15 AM	I am not admitting a problem exists. I am saying that it is not a problem. There is nothing for a DM to "fix". The DM simply has to do his job. His job? So, his job should be to fix the unbalanced game rules? The fact that with a few spells a caster can be a "sneaker" better than a rogue, or a fighter better than a fighter has not been proven false. The DM could fix it, but it's a fact nonetheless. Not to mention that you didn't explain how you fix it. The fact is, it isn't a problem with the system because it is not an efficient course of action. This could only be a problem with a player, as for it to be problematic, a player would have to be choosing an inefficient course of action for the sole purpose of decreasing another PC's ability to contribute to the group's efforts to overcome encounters, which may come with decreased enjoyment for that player. "Inefficient course of action" doesn't mean that a caster can't overshadow non casters easily. You are admitting that the problex exists too, so. In fact, this is a roleplaying game: thus, if a player likes to shine and overshadow his allies because his characters loves to do so, he can do it.
Seeker95 03-15-07, 08:46 AM	So, his job should be to fix the unbalanced game rules?Egres... your argumentation skills need much work. Is "the game is unbalanced" your premise or your conclusion? If you intend it to be your premise, then it doesn't matter what I say. You have already clung to this notion. Since my answers have a completely difference premise (I do not see the classes as "unbalanced" -- I see them as different), they simply cannot satisfy you. I cannot fix your problem, because I do not have such a problem.Not to mention that you didn't explain how you fix it.There is nothing to fix. If there is nothing to fix, there is no "how".
Archangel62 03-15-07, 08:59 AM	The problem with arguing whether the game is workable or not is the problem that each group sees things differently. I know some guys who won't convert from 2nd ed. They like it, they prefer the setup, and they aren't interested in trying anything new. I tend to do a lot of rules tinkering for my games, I use Unearthed Arcana and a lot of variant rules in my games as well as offering my players a ton of options. I have yet to have a real problem in my games, maybe my players are good people that don't try to crack the game in half, maybe I know the rules enough to know how to shut down most of the munchkin designs, and make it fun for the players, maybe a combination of both. But the problem is that the game will change and evolve over time. The fact that the game can handle the amount of houseruling offered and variants without collapsing is a sign of a fairly good system. Later editions might make more use of substitution options and things of that nature. Also, remember, once 10th edition rolls around the game might look a lot different, remember we all use our views of fantasy to shape what our characters should be and what the world should look like. Our generation had Bilbo, Frodo, Elric, Cutter, The Dread Pirate Roberts, this generation has Thrall, Riddick, Anime, each generation draws on different sources for inspiration and design. Each generation might change in rules and mechanics but the core of it will always be the people playing it and that can't ever change.
Elemental 03-15-07, 11:07 AM	Just a comment on this: You want more of a reason, fine. I played a level 20 dwarven barbarian at the Gen Con tough man contest and trashed every level 20 spellcaster I came across, so I'd say spellcasters are not more powerfull hands down then melee characters. Wow, those must have been some really incompetent spellcasters. With the resources of a level 20 wizard, I can think of the following Fighter-B-Gone: Quickened Dimensional Anchor (in case they have a teleport item), Forcecage, Acid Fog. Throw all your attack spells into the fog while your enemy melts (or if they're acid resistant, then make it a solid forcecage and let them suffocate). Fly + Greater Invisibility. If they fly after you, just dispel any item that appears to be responsible (ie--has flapping wings on it). Summon a Bone Devil, have it keep readying to block any charges with a Wall of Ice. And this is leaving Gate or Mordenkainen's Disjunction out of it, which are simply "I Win" buttons.
Sykus 03-15-07, 11:44 AM	PoeticJustice: There's really only one point that really matters here. Its not about whether or not I can sufficiently alter the rules such that I can run a game. Its about an expectation of reasonably balanced rules. Its true that I can houserule stuff away. But I shouldn't have to in order to play the game. He's already said about a thousand ways from Sunday that he's not proposing houseruling anything. I agree. Nothing needs to be houseruled. The wizard is extremely limited in utility and application. It is 100% okay for the DM to play intelligent beings who capitalize on those limitations, as well as plan encounters that strain those limitations. They should be able to buy a quality product which is playable out of the box without having to write out flowcharts of rules interactions. The game is not playable out of the box, and no one starts life as a "Good DM". Wow. You just completely lost any credibility with me. "Not playable out of the box"? What game are you looking at? This premise is so absurd I'm not even going to bother refuting it. Look. You clearly percieve some sort of "imbalance" in D&D that is so grave it threatens your ability to enjoy the game. Fine. I suggest playing something else. Personally, I believe that wizards *should* be more powerful at a higher level. It wouldn't be D&D - wouldn't be the fantasy mythos - if that weren't the case. If every fighter could do everything every wizard could, what would happen to the mystery, the wonder, and the awe of that character type? Forget it. I like the rules just fine as written, thank you very much.
Dexter_Blacktyde 03-15-07, 01:12 PM	The wizard is extremely limited in utility and application. Limited, I agree. But extremely limited? Personally, I believe that wizards *should* be more powerful at a higher level. It wouldn't be D&D - wouldn't be the fantasy mythos - if that weren't the case. That should go without saying. (I wouldn't call playing someone like Gandalf who casts three spells over the course of a whole campaign satisfying ;)) But will you agree that the D&D wizard is extremely powerful at higher levels (compared to spellcasters in other systems), and that he can emulate every other role in the party with ease? That seems to be the only bone of contention here. And I do agree, by the way: A high-level caster can be a pain in the behind for a GM, if only because many of his spells - the selection should be quite impressive at that point - nullify many adventure concepts. (Many spells are problematic in and of themselves.) Casters in other systems are powerful, too, but just not as way out there, if you know what I mean. DB
Squirrelloid 03-15-07, 02:05 PM	He's already said about a thousand ways from Sunday that he's not proposing houseruling anything. I agree. Nothing needs to be houseruled. The wizard is extremely limited in utility and application. It is 100% okay for the DM to play intelligent beings who capitalize on those limitations, as well as plan encounters that strain those limitations. Wow. You just completely lost any credibility with me. "Not playable out of the box"? What game are you looking at? This premise is so absurd I'm not even going to bother refuting it. Look. You clearly percieve some sort of "imbalance" in D&D that is so grave it threatens your ability to enjoy the game. Fine. I suggest playing something else. Personally, I believe that wizards *should* be more powerful at a higher level. It wouldn't be D&D - wouldn't be the fantasy mythos - if that weren't the case. If every fighter could do everything every wizard could, what would happen to the mystery, the wonder, and the awe of that character type? Forget it. I like the rules just fine as written, thank you very much. ... Lets look at just one spell off my problem spell list: Fabricate. Its a 5th level spell. What it does is turn raw goods into finished product far faster than anyone ever could through mundane means. End result: at 9th level the wizard has access to arbitrarily much wealth, independent of the wealth by level guidelines. That *breaks the game*. Lets look at one rules interaction: wish with the rules for SLAs. Now, SLAs require no experience to use, so a wish SLA is the same as a normal wish spell, but it ignores any experience component. Now, wish can create any item, it just adds to the xp cost. Ok, so herald the entrance of Planar Binding, which can be used to bind an Efreet - even if you don't believe you can compel the efreet to give wishes up for free, a fair price for that wish shouldn't include the normal xp cost (because it doesn't spend xp). This would be spell level x caster level x 50gp (what NPC spellcasters charge for casting a spell), which is 9x12x50 = 5400gp. That's a substantial reduction in cost. But the abuse doesn't stop there - as long as the efreet is ignoring xp components, lets have him wish-up a really valuable magic item - an item of 50 wishes costs 750x9x17 = 114750 + 25000 for normal xp cost = 139.75k gp normally, which would normally cost (5590xp) x2 + 5000xp = about 15k xp. Of course, we get to ignore the xp component, because its an SLA. But why stop there... that's only 50 wishes. Lets make a command word item of wish (8x17x1800 + 25000 = 300.4k gp), so we can use wish as often as we like by saying the magic word. Thats a normal cost of ~(12k)x2 +5k = 29k xp, but the efreet still ignores the xp component. Infinite wishes at 11th level - can your beer do that? The relevant text from wish: Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item. ... The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP. Note that, as a pre-defined use of wish, the DM technically has no say in its adjudication - it just happens. (DM's discretion only applies when a player wishes for something beyond those bulleted points that the spell description says Wish can automatically do, according to the spell itself). A wish can produce any one of the following effects. (list) You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.) The wish may only pervert your intent if you try to produce greater effects than these (the list). --------------------------------- So tell me, how is that *not* broken? (And I haven't even left Core yet).
Sykus 03-15-07, 02:19 PM	... Lets look at just one spell off my problem spell list: Fabricate. Its a 5th level spell. What it does is turn raw goods into finished product far faster than anyone ever could through mundane means. End result: at 9th level the wizard has access to arbitrarily much wealth, independent of the wealth by level guidelines. That *breaks the game*. I'll respond to this after I have a chance to take another look at the spell. I'm at work right now. Lets look at one rules interaction: wish with the rules for SLAs. Now, SLAs require no experience to use, so a wish SLA is the same as a normal wish spell, but it ignores any experience component. Now, wish can create any item, it just adds to the xp cost. Ok, so herald the entrance of Planar Binding, which can be used to bind an Efreet - even if you don't believe you can compel the efreet to give wishes up for free, a fair price for that wish shouldn't include the normal xp cost (because it doesn't spend xp). This would be spell level x caster level x 50gp (what NPC spellcasters charge for casting a spell), which is 9x12x50 = 5400gp. That's a substantial reduction in cost. But the abuse doesn't stop there - as long as the efreet is ignoring xp components, lets have him wish-up a really valuable magic item - an item of 50 wishes costs 750x9x17 = 114750 + 25000 for normal xp cost = 139.75k gp normally, which would normally cost (5590xp) x2 + 5000xp = about 15k xp. Of course, we get to ignore the xp component, because its an SLA. But why stop there... that's only 50 wishes. Lets make a command word item of wish (8x17x1800 + 25000 = 300.4k gp), so we can use wish as often as we like by saying the magic word. Thats a normal cost of ~(12k)x2 +5k = 29k xp, but the efreet still ignores the xp component. Infinite wishes at 11th level - can your beer do that? The relevant text from wish: Note that, as a pre-defined use of wish, the DM technically has no say in its adjudication - it just happens. (DM's discretion only applies when a player wishes for something beyond those bulleted points that the spell description says Wish can automatically do, according to the spell itself). The wish may only pervert your intent if you try to produce greater effects than these (the list). --------------------------------- So tell me, how is that *not* broken? (And I haven't even left Core yet). This is a perfect example of the DM needing to adjudicate the game. If the DM wants the wizards in the game to get away with doing this, great. Go for it. Personally, I would interpret Planar Binding differently than you are here and rule that you are expecting the spell to do more than it can really do. At the point that the efreet can extract a "fair cost" for his services, you'd better watch your back. That's a subjective requirement if I ever heard one.
PoeticJustice 03-15-07, 02:22 PM	PoeticJustice: There's really only one point that really matters here. Its not about whether or not I can sufficiently alter the rules such that I can run a game. Its about an expectation of reasonably balanced rules. Its true that I can houserule stuff away. But I shouldn't have to in order to play the game. I never said you needed to, I said that the rules were written with the expectation that they would be inspected and possibly altered by those implementing them in their campaigns. I certainly have never had to ban material or houserule against a party. I've also been DMing for 15 years. I know what I'm doing. I made 2nd edition work for me. I make 3.x work for me. But there are lots of less experienced DMs out there. They should be able to buy a quality product which is playable out of the box without having to write out flowcharts of rules interactions. The game is not playable out of the box, and no one starts life as a "Good DM". To get that far one needs experience. Imbalanced products hurt the new players and DMs the most, because sometimes they might be fine, but other times they might discover one of those loopholes large enough to drive a truck through - and the rules tell them its ok! A quick list of problem spells: Fabricate Polymorph et al. Planar Binding Charm X (combined with Diplomacy) Gate Scry+Teleport Contingency Wish as an SLA AMF Astral Projection Simulacrum I could list more. Its actually a pretty long list. Some of these are problematic because they lead to areas of the rules where there is no answer. Some of these are problematic because they vastly change how the game works. Some of these are problematic because it requires Language:legalese to even figure out what it does! (Polymorph, i'm looking at you). Some of these are problematic because they generate free wealth. Then you need to keep listing stuff, because nothing on that list, no situation you've brought up, is compelling. You think this stuff is a disservice to novice DMs? I think I made a lot of errors as a newbie DM that had nothing to do with the rules. They had to do with me not being very experienced. Since the ability to implement the rules to your advantage and tightly control play is learned over time rather than from a book, I don't think you can clean up the rules to help newbs. Also, I don't know how you can draw the conclusion that the game is unplayable without houserules. This is patently untrue in my experience. And thats before even getting to spells which lead to class-balance problems. That list is even longer, because all these spells are on it, plus a host of others. And I haven't even stepped outside of Core yet. I think you are referring to the hypothetical problem of a wizard being just as good or better at everything than anyone else. As I have never actually seen this occur in more than 200 sessions DM'ing, I can only assume it is idle speculation. I will now list the reasons why it could occur: 1. Many spells enhance the caster's ability to accomplish certain tasks. I will now list the reasons why I think this would not occur: 1. Spells can be dispelled. 2. Spells are often of such limited duration they cannot be relied upon to aid the caster in more than one encounter. 3. The caster must often give up spellcasting in order to employ these methods (Polymorph errata removes spellcasting, sneaking around is really hard using verbal component spells) There most definitely is a problem. The fact that some of us can houserule it away, and that some of them won't come up in our games because we know better, doesn't change the fact that those problems exist in the rules *and shouldn't*. The DM has the right to change things in his game, that doesn't excuse mechanics which don't work or work in a manner which leads to brokenness. Again, I've seen nothing conclusive that would lead me to believe houserules are required, in any event. Are there degenerate combos? Yeah. Is this game messy at times? Yeah. Can any of these be ruled away by tighter design? Maybe...but only maybe. It's more likely that a bunch of new problems would arise instead. I know for certain that intelligent DM'ing fixes this problem without resorting to banning or houserules.
Squirrelloid 03-15-07, 02:45 PM	I'll respond to this after I have a chance to take another look at the spell. I'm at work right now. This is a perfect example of the DM needing to adjudicate the game. If the DM wants the wizards in the game to get away with doing this, great. Go for it. Personally, I would interpret Planar Binding differently than you are here and rule that you are expecting the spell to do more than it can really do. At the point that the efreet can extract a "fair cost" for his services, you'd better watch your back. That's a subjective requirement if I ever heard one. The fair cost for casting a spell is Spell Level x Caster Level x 50gp, as per the DMG guidelines. (+5gp/xp spent). Anything else is a houserule. But heck, you'd hand the efreet twice that. You'd even hand him the normal cost for an NPC to cast a wish spell, even including the adjustment for xp despite the fact the efreet spends none. Remember, he agrees to the task "grant a wish for me". He doesn't know what the wish is until you've told him, by which point he's already bound to complete the agreement by the Planar Binding spell (and his own Lawful nature). And if you're using the rules, the DM has no right to tell you the wish doesn't work - its a clever exploit of the rules as written, but it is exactly what the rules tell you should happen.
PoeticJustice 03-15-07, 03:59 PM	I'm getting confused here. First, you, Squirrelloid, say we need to protect newbies. There's absolutely no way somebody new to the game would think of that byzantine situation with the efreet. More than that, there's no much of a chance that somebody would maliciously twist the rules like that unless they're DM'ing. Second, it wouldn't work. Efreets are lawful, yes, but they are also evil, and an outsider no less, so I think they'd work to twist whatever you exacted from them to their advantage. Besides, wish can't emulate wish so you can't create that magic item. Your other example, with Fabricate, doesn't hold up either. Fabricate only works on so many square feet of material per casting, you still need to gather the material, which is both expensive and time consuming if done on the scale you imply and, in the end, you don't end up with gold, you end up goods. Can you honestly imagine a village requiring the 1000 swords it would take to generate 8000 gold? Even then, you still have to acquire the steel. You could go to a larger comunity but the principle still applies. High suppl leads to low demand leads to low prices leads to bad economy. EDIT: I just wanted to add that I don't consider any of these arguments to be houserules. They are appropriate interpretations of existing rules to highly unusual circumstances.
Seeker95 03-15-07, 04:41 PM	At 9th level the wizard has access to arbitrarily much wealth, independent of the wealth by level guidelines. That *breaks the game*.Methinks thou dost protest too much. I've been playing D&D for over 28 years, and 3e since the day it came out. Fabricate has never broken my game. Nor have polymorph, wish, miracle, clerics, haste, wizards, alignment or the absence of rules on how to pee in a dungeon.
Egres 03-16-07, 09:45 AM	Egres... your argumentation skills need much work. Is "the game is unbalanced" your premise or your conclusion? Both. A theory is a start, and the conclusion can be that the theory was true or false. Can you prove my theory false? Casters can overshadow easily noncasters in everything they do. With a few spells like Divine Power or Tenser's Transformation, a buffed caster can wipe away every non caster in his own field. An invisible, silenced caster can be a sneaker better than any rogue. Can you prove me wrong? All you have done here is saying "nuuh nuuh", and nothing more. The fact that you don't see the problem is meaningless; it only shows that 28 years of playing have not been enough fro you to see it. (maybe because your party was not skilled enough to show you what casters can do, who knows?)
Leo 03-16-07, 09:59 AM	Both. A theory is a start, and the conclusion can be that the theory was true or false. Can you prove my theory false? Casters can overshadow easily noncasters in everything they do. With a few spells like Divine Power or Tenser's Transformation, a buffed caster can wipe away every non caster in his own field. An invisible, silenced caster can be a sneaker better than any rogue. Can you prove me wrong? All you have done here is saying "nuuh nuuh", and nothing more. The fact that you don't see the problem is meaningless; it only shows that 28 years of playing have not been enough fro you to see it. (maybe because your party was not skilled enough to show you what casters can do, who knows?) Well, they seemed to have fun for playing 28 years. Not bad for an unbalanced system, hmm?:P
OravennasBrother 03-16-07, 10:16 AM	At the end of the whole matter, D&D 3.5 is much more better than AD&D II edition, but still it lacks in proper rules to have the players to feel an acceptable level of reality For Realism try a DIFFERENT System (say Harnmaster from Columbia Games) For more balance between Spellcasters and Fighters, try 2nd (and Earlier) edition AD&D - ALL the earlier editions had this wonderful mechanism called SLOW advancement, which meant that Wizards (no sorcerers before 3rd) would spend a VERY long time with 1 Spell per day before they advanced to an amazing 2 spells per day. No Bonus spells per day for High Int, no free scribe scolls "feat" to stack in even more spellcasting, and most of the "Cantrips" were 1st level spells. For a fighter surviving to 3rd level was generally feasible, but it took an exceptional spellcaster to get to that point. 3rd took THAT balancing factor away an now high level Wizards are a dime a dozen. However if the FIGHTER has the appropriate GEAR for his level, he can inflict and absorb a lot of damage - what is listed in the DMG by level is the gear at NPC wealth levels. PC wealth is FAR higher and that extra wealth makes a huge difference.
Sykus 03-16-07, 10:55 AM	Well, they seemed to have fun for playing 28 years. Not bad for an unbalanced system, hmm?:P Game, set, match. Seriously, this is the bottom line.
High Octane 03-16-07, 11:33 AM	Both. A theory is a start, and the conclusion can be that the theory was true or false. Can you prove my theory false? Casters can overshadow easily noncasters in everything they do. With a few spells like Divine Power or Tenser's Transformation, a buffed caster can wipe away every non caster in his own field. If you think a Tensers Transformationed Wizard or Sorcerer would beat a Fighter, you are sadly mistaken. The Fighter would still have way more hit points (since at that level he probably has a +4 con item to match the tensers buff) Higher Strength (same reason) Higher AC (Armor) and a slew of bonus feats to play with, including weapon focus and specialization. Divine Power is quite good, and will give the hit points and strength of a fighter in many cases, but it also uses a very high spell slot and can be dispelled, and the caster still doesnt have the bonus feats. An invisible, silenced caster can be a sneaker better than any rogue. Both have durations, wizards/sorcerers cant cast silence and cleric/druids cant normally cast invisibility. Bards can cast both, but bards are meant to be a roguish class. Also, invisibility, though good, is not all its cracked up to be given the immense amount of divinations and workarounds to get seen. A rogue's hide skill however can only be countered by a good spot check. Silence prevents spellcasting also, unless the caster has silent spell (which takes up an extra spell slot) plus the caster also hears nothing. Finally, rogues get the benefit of a sneak attack while hidden. Can you prove me wrong? Well not without charts and graphs, but can YOU prove yourself right?
High Octane 03-16-07, 11:35 AM	For Realism try a DIFFERENT System (say Harnmaster from Columbia Games) For more balance between Spellcasters and Fighters, try 2nd (and Earlier) edition AD&D - ALL the earlier editions had this wonderful mechanism called SLOW advancement, which meant that Wizards (no sorcerers before 3rd) would spend a VERY long time with 1 Spell per day before they advanced to an amazing 2 spells per day. No Bonus spells per day for High Int, no free scribe scolls "feat" to stack in even more spellcasting, and most of the "Cantrips" were 1st level spells. For a fighter surviving to 3rd level was generally feasible, but it took an exceptional spellcaster to get to that point. 3rd took THAT balancing factor away an now high level Wizards are a dime a dozen. However if the FIGHTER has the appropriate GEAR for his level, he can inflict and absorb a lot of damage - what is listed in the DMG by level is the gear at NPC wealth levels. PC wealth is FAR higher and that extra wealth makes a huge difference. In short, play first edition if you want casters to be worthless until 5th level and fighters to be useless after 7th!
Sykus 03-16-07, 11:54 AM	Casters can overshadow easily noncasters in everything they do. With a few spells like Divine Power or Tenser's Transformation, a buffed caster can wipe away every non caster in his own field. An invisible, silenced caster can be a sneaker better than any rogue. Can you prove me wrong? Yes, I can. These tired old examples keep getting brought up, but when you actually see them attempted in a game (as I have, repeatedly) they fall flat on their face. Tenser's Transformation: This spell gives you a +4 on Strength, Dex and Con, +4 to AC, +5 on Fort saves, and a 1.0 BAB for a minimum of 11 rounds (just over a minute). Even assuming that that puts you on par with an average fighter (which is quite a stretch; your AC, HP, and Strength will not begin to compare to a fighter of equivalent level), it does not give you any additional gear, which a fighter of this level would almost certainly have collected; it does not give you power attack, or combat expertise; it does not increase your threat range as a keen weapon or Improved Crit would; it does not give you any bonus feats or increase your hit die. Additionally, it strips you of all your spellcasting abilities, so you better hope to god there wasn't another monster hiding around the corner that you missed or that you're going to need a Dispel Magic in the near future, because it ain't dismissable. The two times I've seen this spell cast, the wizard who cast it got beaten nearly to death. People talk about this spell plus additional buffs making the wizard more potent than the fighter. In the rounds that the wizard is spending buffing himself trying to become as good at melee as the fighter, the fighter has probably already killed half the enemies. OR, the figher has been spending the same amount of time on self-buffs (potions, UMD wand use) and has outpaced the wizard anyway. Invisibility and Silence > Rogue sneak I would rather be a stealthing rogue than a silenced wizard any day of the week. The silenced wizard can't cast any spells with a verbal component, unless he prepared appropriately. The silenced wizard can't hear any threats that may be sneaking up on *him*. The silenced wizard has a radius of silence effect, and if that effect happens to fall over someone who may find it suspicious, the game is immediately up. If the silenced wizard does get caught, either by stumbling past someone using a See Invis wand, or a True Seeing, or triggering an alarm or tripping a trap, and gets into a melee, what will he do? He ain't casting any spells with verbal components, and in one-on-one (or, more likely, three- or four-on-one; after all, he was sneaking for a *reason*, right?) melee, he is going to be disposed of fast. If the wizard decides to just go invis and not use the silence, he has to make Move Silently rolls. Let me know how that works out. That's not even to mention that Silence is not a wizard spell in the SRD, and Invis is not a Cleric spell. So to self-buff both, you need to be multiclassed. Contrast this with the rogue, who has the ability to speak or cast small spells if push comes to shove, can hear the guard coming around the corner with his awesome Listen bonus, doeesn't have a radius of effect and so can sneak right behind a guard or monster through a tight passage with no trouble, and, if he does get caught, can hold his own in melee even against flanking attackers. I've seen so many wizards over the years try to do a rogue's job. If they get away with it, it is only because the DM isn't actually picturing the scenario.
a_psh 03-16-07, 12:33 PM	In short, play first edition if you want casters to be worthless until 5th level and fighters to be useless after 7th!Now that's why I call "balance"! ... Seriously, who the hell calls that "balance"?
FrostWolf 03-16-07, 01:17 PM	Some things could use a re-doing. fighters aren't worth getting to 20 with. Not when you have to start bumming buffs that could be utility or damage spells. Honestly, next time you play, add up the gold cost of all the spells cast on you, then see if you feel good claiming an equal share of the loot. Don't get me wrong, I love the fighter as a dip, but it isn't practicle to take it to 20. Same with a sorcerer. Spot casting IS nice, but when all you have is one spell of your max level, what is the point? And you don't even get fluff after first level, so why stick with the caster that can't use metamagic feats normaly, has a lower ammount of spells that, if you are using 20 as max level, will NEVER grow, and has less feats and skills? I'd meld the fighter, marshal, and warblade into one class. And if they think spot casting is so damn great, I'd meld sorcerer with the faviored soul or something. Or just drop it and add warlock to the PHB in it's place.
CharlieRock 03-16-07, 01:33 PM	(2) Bring the casters down in power. This is really problematic. (a) go through the spell list and prune or re-write ~60% of all spells ever written (ugg). (b) The monsters in the monster manual assume access to that kind of spellpower. Many of them also use spells on a regular basis. Depowering casters will require rebalancing *all* CRs, monkeying with ~50% of monster stat-blocks, and so forth. Wasn't so problematic for me. I just slowed the cast times down. Doesn't 'power up' the fighters as much as one might think. It does empower mundane ranged characters. We're getting a lot more concentration checks from arrows. We like it that way, so on the battlefield you have three main types that have to work together. The Archers keep the enemy casters in check. The Fighters clear out the enemy archers. And the Casters pound the other side once the map 'opens' up more for them. Have you ever had a player who took Knowledge (Dungeoneering)? Dang near standard skill here. If you don't have it, chances are your buddy does. In short, play first edition if you want casters to be worthless until 5th level and fighters to be useless after 7th! Fighters were far from useless after 7th in Classic (non-A)D&D. In encounters with enemy magic-users there were a few rules differences. No concentration checks. No movement. No other action at all, in fact. My magic-user would get stuck standing still wriggling his fingers for half a round while someone who grand-mastered bolo (the non-magical man's hold person) would whallop me. Unless I had an ally who could distract them (by, say, mastering sword and disarming them, or maybe even backstabbing them.)
Egres 03-16-07, 01:47 PM	Well, they seemed to have fun for playing 28 years. Not bad for an unbalanced system, hmm?:P People get fun even by watching the Big Brother on TV. If you think a Tensers Transformationed Wizard or Sorcerer would beat a Fighter, you are sadly mistaken. The Fighter would still have way more hit points (since at that level he probably has a +4 con item to match the tensers buff) Higher Strength (same reason) Higher AC (Armor) and a slew of bonus feats to play with, including weapon focus and specialization. Maybe you didn't notice that I wrote "a buffed caster". A flying, invisible, stoneskined wizard can easily wipe away your fighter, no matter how you try. Give the Character optimization board a try: let them compare a fighter to a wizard, and see what you get. Divine Power is quite good, and will give the hit points and strength of a fighter in many cases, but it also uses a very high spell slot and can be dispelled, and the caster still doesnt have the bonus feats. High spell slot? 4th? The feats are worthless if compared to spells. Both have durations, wizards/sorcerers cant cast silence Suspended Silence, Spell Compendium. Not to mention Nightstalker Transformation, or Polymorph: these spells can make you a perfect sneaker. Also, invisibility, though good, is not all its cracked up to be given the immense amount of divinations and workarounds to get seen. A rogue's hide skill however can only be countered by a good spot check. Unfortunately you can't hide in a lighted corridor. Tenser's Transformation: This spell gives you a +4 on Strength, Dex and Con, +4 to AC, +5 on Fort saves, and a 1.0 BAB for a minimum of 11 rounds (just over a minute). Even assuming that that puts you on par with an average fighter (which is quite a stretch; your AC, HP, and Strength will not begin to compare to a fighter of equivalent level), it does not give you any additional gear, which a fighter of this level would almost certainly have collected; it does not give you power attack, or combat expertise; it does not increase your threat range as a keen weapon or Improved Crit would; it does not give you any bonus feats or increase your hit die. Additionally, it strips you of all your spellcasting abilities, so you better hope to god there wasn't another monster hiding around the corner that you missed or that you're going to need a Dispel Magic in the near future, because it ain't dismissable. The two times I've seen this spell cast, the wizard who cast it got beaten nearly to death. You didn't notice that the gear and the feats are useless compared to spells. As I wrote before, an invisible, flying, stoneskined wizard is far better than any fighter counterpart. People talk about this spell plus additional buffs making the wizard more potent than the fighter. In the rounds that the wizard is spending buffing himself trying to become as good at melee as the fighter, the fighter has probably already killed half the enemies. Or he probably has been killed. OR, the figher has been spending the same amount of time on self-buffs (potions, UMD wand use) and has outpaced the wizard anyway. So, the fighter needs magical assistance? Thank you for your support. I would rather be a stealthing rogue than a silenced wizard any day of the week. The silenced wizard can't cast any spells with a verbal component, unless he prepared appropriately. The silenced wizard can't hear any threats that may be sneaking up on *him*. The silenced wizard has a radius of silence effect, and if that effect happens to fall over someone who may find it suspicious, the game is immediately up. If the silenced wizard does get caught, either by stumbling past someone using a See Invis wand, or a True Seeing, or triggering an alarm or tripping a trap, and gets into a melee, what will he do? What would do instead the rogue? Run desperately away? The Wizard can easily penetrate into any builds with Dimension Doors and Teleport, polymorph himself into a little animal or even insect and sneak everywhere. The silenced/invisible was just one of many ways the wiz can be the perfect sneaker. If the wizard decides to just go invis and not use the silence, he has to make Move Silently rolls. Let me know how that works out. Aside from what I wrote before, let me remind you the existence of the Superior Invisibility spell.
Seeker95 03-16-07, 02:11 PM	Egres, I do not need to prove you wrong. I have never claimed that your game is not broken. I have only claimed the the game is not broken. If the game were broken, my game would be broken. My game is not broken. In 28 years of playing D&D, and nearly seven years of playing 3e, I have not found the core classes to be unbalanced, unplayable, unfair, or unfun. I have not had the problems you claim to have had. I am making no claims about your experience. I have no interest in proving that you have not had problems. I find it odd that you seem so bent out of shape that I have not had such problems.
OravennasBrother 03-16-07, 02:20 PM	In short, play first edition if you want casters to be worthless until 5th level and fighters to be useless after 7th! In Short you play 1st edition if you want lower powered slower advancing characters. In short you don't play any version of D&D if you want Realism. And finally, In Short, a High level Fighter with APPROPRIATE gear for his level is as capable of facing 4 threats PER DAY as a Wizard.
Egres 03-16-07, 02:53 PM	Egres, I do not need to prove you wrong. I have never claimed that your game is not broken. I have only claimed the the game is not broken. If the game were broken, my game would be broken. My game is not broken. In 28 years of playing D&D, and nearly seven years of playing 3e, I have not found the core classes to be unbalanced, unplayable, unfair, or unfun. I have not had the problems you claim to have had. I am making no claims about your experience. I have no interest in proving that you have not had problems. I find it odd that you seem so bent out of shape that I have not had such problems. This means that you were lucky enough to have people that liked to play as a team. Or that you have fixed the problem. But this doesn't mean that a player couldn't have fun outshining his noncasters-allies playing a caster. And, based on human psycholgy, that would't be so odd.
High Octane 03-16-07, 03:01 PM	People get fun even by watching the Big Brother on TV. Maybe you didn't notice that I wrote "a buffed caster". A flying, invisible, stoneskined wizard can easily wipe away your fighter, no matter how you try. Then its not in the fighters domain now is it? Give the Character optimization board a try: let them compare a fighter to a wizard, and see what you get. This statement means about as much to me as someone saying that a rule doesnt apply since you can break it using epic level feats or spells. Which is akin to less than NOTHING. High spell slot? 4th? To a 7th-10th level cleric, yes it is. Beyond that its a decent level spell. The feats are worthless if compared to spells. Spells are not in the fighters domain. You are talking about something unrelated to the claim that yuou made, that a caster can perform the fighters job. Suspended Silence, Spell Compendium. At work, cant check. Not to mention Nightstalker Transformation, or Polymorph: these spells can make you a perfect sneaker. and unable to cast spells. Nightstalkers also doesnt make you as good as a rogue of equivelant level by any stretch. It also lasts 1 round a level. Polymorph has been the subject of so much debate I wont even START on it here. Unfortunately you can't hide in a lighted corridor. What kind of dumbass rogue doesnt use the alternate route or what kind of railroading DM makes every corrider lit and straight and the only way to get anywhere? If necessary, the wizard can cast invisibility on the ROGUE since hes more qualified to move silently. TEAM GAME. Sure if the wizard has all the right spells prepared at the right time and ample oppurtunity to cast them, he can buff himself to somewhere around the same level as the rogue or fighter. But heres a thought, WHY WOULD HE USE THE SPELLS ON HIMSELF WHEN THEY WOULD MAKE THE ROGUE AND FIGHTER EVEN BETTER? Seriously, the rogue benefits from improved invisibility a lot more than the mage. Sneak attack every round and every attack and all. The fighter gets the nice benefits of the hast buff and a fly spell would help HIM attack the flying bad guy while the wizard can keep blasting! TEAM. GAME. And this game also exists before 11th level when the wizard starts getting the 6th level spells you are pouting over. "But in a 1 on 1 situation...." **** 1 on 1! This isnt a dueling game! Its an adventuring game! The fact that the wizard could beat the fighter is irrelevant! The real issue is, does the fighter and rogue get the chance to shine and contribute, and the answer is yes they do. The fighter does have some issues, but thats a generally understood topic and most people prestige their fighters anyway.
Sykus 03-16-07, 03:47 PM	Wow, Egres, your argument changed so many times in that post that it's going to be hard to keep up with you, but I'll do my best. First off, the intial claim you made that I was refuting was that Tenser's Transformation + "a couple buffs" makes a wizard better than a fighter at doing his own job. When this was soundly refuted (I have yet to see any solid argument from you against the actual points I laid out), you started talking about a wizard turning invisible, flying, and slinging spells from the air. This is a completely different tactic and would not be "beating the fighter at his own game". It's a tactic unique to wizards. Great. Fighters also have a tactic unique to them: it's called "charge in and beat the everliving crap out of everything". Both the wizard doing it his way and the fighter doing it his way will likely succeed. But as soon as the wizard turns invisible and starts flying, he's not performing the fighter role better than the fighter can, because he's not performing a fighter role at all. I don't have any problem with two classes needing to address the same situation in different ways; that is why there *are* different classes, after all. As for your claims about Suspended Silence and Superior Invisibility (neither of which were mentioned in your OP, which proves further that your original premises were flawed), those are non-SRD spells and would be subject to DM approval. They are certainly not a part of the core ruleset presented in the PHB. When debating whether the classes are "balanced", you need to look at them as they are initially presented. Anything non-SRD can be modified or rejected by a DM as he sees fit; thus the question of whether a given spell even exists or is balanced itself would pre-empt the question of whether the whole wizard class is unbalanced by doing the Fighter's job better than the fighter. Polymorph may make you a better sneaker, but it is very dangerous to use. Once again, a single True Seeing means the game is up, and in the altered form you can be killed very easily. You didn't notice that the gear and the feats are useless compared to spells. You have nothing here to back this up. I "didn't notice" because it's patently untrue. Magical equipment can compensate for any number of perceived weaknesses and grant any number of powers that any character wouldn't otherwise have. It's a part of the game. Your little flying/invisibility trick can just as easily be accomplished by any Tom, Dick, or Harry with the right magic items. However, Transformation still doesn't give your wizard the Power Attack feat, which means he can't do as much melee damage as the Fighter. Period. So, the fighter needs magical assistance? Thank you for your support. The fighter benefits from magical assistance, yes, of course. All classes do. The fighter has the ability to put points into UMD just as any class does, and to drink potions just as any class does. My point was that while the wizard is spending several rounds casting all his self buffs, the fighter is taking action. If the fighter *does*, for whatever reason, spend as much time buffing as the wizard in your example, he becomes godly. Additionally, without a fighter to cover his butt while he casts all these buffs, your little wizard gets eaten. Monsters don't usually just stand around waiting politely for you to buff up. Again, this is dependent on DM adjudication. I won't say it's dependent on a DM "adjudicating correctly" because that is subjective, just as many elements of the entire game are. The Wizard can easily penetrate into any builds with Dimension Doors and Teleport Ha ha, yes, this is true. And I love it when they do it. This has happened when I'm DMing on at least two different occasions that come immediately to mind. Both times the wizard underestimated the amount of resistance he would encounter at his target destination, and both times said wizard ended up deader than a doornail. Wizards who are overdependent on this technique almost always end up winning the Darwin Award ;)
Egres 03-16-07, 03:55 PM	Then its not in the fighters domain now is it? Ys, it is. The options he uses are meaningless: the only thing that matters is that a wizard can blast away his opponents, even in melee fighting, better than a fighter. To a 7th-10th level cleric, yes it is. Beyond that its a decent level spell. This statement means about as much to me as someone saying that a football ball is heavy, because it's heavy for a 3years old kid. Spells are not in the fighters domain. You are talking about something unrelated to the claim that yuou made, that a caster can perform the fighters job. Wizards can perform fighters job with their spells. Thta's a fact: deal with it. Nowhere you'll find a rule that states that you must use plenty of feats to be considered a melee type class. and unable to cast spells. Unable to cast spells....like a rogue. Polymorph has been the subject of so much debate I wont even START on it here. Meaningless. The spell is still there. What kind of dumbass rogue doesnt use the alternate route or what kind of railroading DM makes every corrider lit and straight and the only way to get anywhere? Serious DMs try to be a bit more realistic than those dumbass DM that make their world around their players abilities. If necessary, the wizard can cast invisibility on the ROGUE since hes more qualified to move silently. TEAM GAME. Team game means that you need the wizard's help, while the opposite isn't true. Not to mention that not every player likes to play this "all-we-need-is-love" way of gaming.
Sykus 03-16-07, 04:02 PM	Ys, it is. Wizards can perform fighters job with their spells. Thta's a fact: deal with it. Meaningless. The spell is still there. Serious DMs try to be a bit more realistic than those dumbass DM that make their world around their players abilities. Team game means that you need the wizard's help, while the opposite isn't true. Not to mention that not every player likes to play this "all-we-need-is-love" way of gaming. Wow, again. You know what? Never mind. I'm going to stop trying to have a civil discussion with someone who so obviously has no interest in civil discussion. It's clear that everyone else is enjoying their game. If you're not enjoying yours, I'm guessing the reason has a lot more to do with your attitude than it does with any "game inbalance".
Egres 03-16-07, 04:10 PM	First off, the intial claim you made that I was refuting was that Tenser's Transformation + "a couple buffs" makes a wizard better than a fighter at doing his own job. When this was soundly refuted (I have yet to see any solid argument from you against the actual points I laid out), Soundly argumented? You didn't prove anything. You simply stated that in your experience that wasnt true: in other words, blah blah. Tenser's Transformation: This spell gives you a +4 on Strength, Dex and Con, +4 to AC, +5 on Fort saves, and a 1.0 BAB for a minimum of 11 rounds (just over a minute). Even assuming that that puts you on par with an average fighter (which is quite a stretch; your AC, HP, and Strength will not begin to compare to a fighter of equivalent level) Prove it, please. it does not give you any additional gear, which a fighter of this level would almost certainly have collected; Maybe you didn't think that the wizard too has gear: maybe more gear than the fighter, since he can make his own gear via feats. it does not give you power attack, or combat expertise; Useless if compared to wizard buffs. it does not increase your threat range as a keen weapon or Improved Crit would; Ohh, shiny! it does not give you any bonus feats or increase your hit die. Feats lose if compared to spells. Yout hit die don't need to be higher, if you get enough temporary hp (not to mention that the wiz is way hard to hit when buffed) Additionally, it strips you of all your spellcasting abilities, so you better hope to god there wasn't another monster hiding around the corner that you missed or that you're going to need a Dispel Magic in the near future, because it ain't dismissable. Meaningless. You are admitting that in a single encounter this spell is patently efficient. The two times I've seen this spell cast, the wizard who cast it got beaten nearly to death. Two times? Maybe this is the reason why you can't see how useful can be. you started talking about a wizard turning invisible, flying, and slinging spells from the air. This is a completely different tactic and would not be "beating the fighter at his own game". It's a tactic unique to wizards. Great. Fighters also have a tactic unique to them: it's called "charge in and beat the everliving crap out of everything". Both the wizard doing it his way and the fighter doing it his way will likely succeed. But as soon as the wizard turns invisible and starts flying, he's not performing the fighter role better than the fighter can, because he's not performing a fighter role at all. I don't have any problem with two classes needing to address the same situation in different ways; that is why there *are* different classes, after all. Maybe the problem here is: define "fighter's role" I'm asking because if you think that the fighter role is to...play a fighter, then this debate is meaningless, since the OP was addressing another problem. Just to refresh your memory, the problem is that, as levels go higher, the fighter become more and more useless if compared to casters, that can wipe away opponents more easily and quicker than him. As for your claims about Suspended Silence and Superior Invisibility (neither of which were mentioned in your OP, which proves further that your original premises were flawed), those are non-SRD spells and would be subject to DM approval. Meaningless reply. Those spells exists in this game. The fact that a DM would refuse to use them means that I'm right, thanks. When debating whether the classes are "balanced", you need to look at them as they are initially presented. I can't see why. Sounds like you have nothing better to say "ouch, let's try to avoid the matter entirely". Magical equipment can compensate for any number of perceived weaknesses and grant any number of powers that any character wouldn't otherwise have. It's a part of the game. So, a fighter needs magical assistance to be compared with a wizard's class abilities. Thanks. My point was that while the wizard is spending several rounds casting all his self buffs, the fighter is taking action. Useless actions. Ha ha, yes, this is true. And I love it when they do it. This has happened when I'm DMing on at least two different occasions that come immediately to mind. Both times the wizard underestimated the amount of resistance he would encounter at his target destination, and both times said wizard ended up deader than a doornail. Wizards who are overdependent on this technique almost always end up winning the Darwin Award So, the wizard can understimate the amount of resistance he would encounter, but a rougue would not? Ahahah. Try again.
Sykus 03-16-07, 04:20 PM	Soundly argumented? You didn't prove anything. You simply stated that in your experience that wasnt true: in other words, blah blah. Prove it, please. Maybe you didn't think that the wizard too has gear: maybe more gear than the fighter, since he can make his own gear via feats. Useless if compared to wizard buffs. Ohh, shiny! Feats lose if compared to spells. Yout hit die don't need to be higher, if you get enough temporary hp (not to mention that the wiz is way hard to hit when buffed) Meaningless. You are admitting that in a single encounter this spell is patently efficient. Two times? Maybe this is the reason why you can't see how useful can be. Maybe the problem here is: define "fighter's role" I'm asking because if you think that the fighter role is to...play a fighter, then this debate is meaningless, since the OP was addressing another problem. Just to refresh your memory, the problem is that, as levels go higher, the fighter become more and more useless if compared to casters, that can wipe away opponents more easily and quicker than him. Meaningless reply. Those spells exists in this game. The fact that a DM would refuse to use them means that I'm right, thanks. I can't see why. Sounds like you have nothing better to say "ouch, let's try to avoid the matter entirely". So, a fighter needs magical assistance to be compared with a wizard's class abilities. Thanks. Useless actions. So, the wizard can understimate the amount of resistance he would encounter, but a rougue would not? Ahahah. Try again. ..... Meaningless.
OravennasBrother 03-16-07, 04:51 PM	So, a fighter needs magical assistance to be compared with a wizard's class abilities. Umm, OK so try playing a Wizard with no magical gear and see what happens. Standard wealth/gear is PART of the GAME - without it balance becomes meaningless. And that Wizard better have more wealth as Wizards have a LOT more gear that gets expended than Fighters. Use a Scroll or wand or staff and that's wealth down the drain. Fighter's don't (generally) use either. Melee Fighters use Melee Weapons, Armor, Shields, and Miscellaneous Items - none of those are "expended" Both might use potions, but why use a Bull's Strength Potion when you wear a Belt of +4 Strength? 16,000 GP is NOT A LOT for a 12th level Fighter to invest in his main ability, which is hitting things hard. All the "Buffing" takes time. Time you may not have. Fighters are generally ready to go full bore at the drop of a hat. Like when the PARTY gets ambushed. The Buffer is out of luck when ambushed, when out of spells, or when someone gets the drop on him. Without a figther to interpose for those critical rounds the Wizard WILL die (sooner or later - you might escaoe one encounter but after a while the odds will stack against you) Massive Damage - ever hear of it? Because when the Wizard is NOT buffed it takes him down very fast. FIghters have lots more HP AND lots better base Fortitude saves, so massive damage is not as debilitating for them. Yuo can't react with a spell, so if you get dropped to -12 HP before you cast, piff you're dead. The same damage to a fighter would see him still on his feet able to fight.
Mr. Master 03-16-07, 05:53 PM	I hadn't the time to read all the answers,but I'd like to give my own opinion. I've been playing D&D since 1994-95.I've played with the OLD edition up to 2000-2001,when 3.0 was released.I still play with 3.0 and I think I'm going to play it until another edition will be released. I've played as a player up to 2003,as a master from 1996 to now. I don't read about RPGs as much as I'd like,because I have also other hobbies.I'm not a member of a RPG club nor do I go to RPG conventions and all that stuff.I don't even know if there are such things here in Italy. This is my game experience,so you can judge what I'm going to say in the next few lines. I think 3.0 is marvellous.It gives the players a lot of chances to customize their own character.Prestige classes + monsters' evolution (=their CR's improvement) + skill points + feats have been a revolution in the game.Thanks to them,I can now create whatever campaing I wish.My players can create whatever sort of character they like. Of course,I could do this in D&D 1st edition,but I had to create a big bunch of house rules to do so.In 3.0,on the other hand,a lot of work has been done by game developers and I thank them. I don't know so much 3.5 to talk about it,but,given what I know about it,it seems to me that it gives the players and DMs even more chances to customize their players/campaigns. Does this mean that D&D is a perfect game,supremely balanced,carefully crafted and with no possible evolution? No,it doesn't.The main reason is that all of us have different opinion on what we consider to be balanced,well crafted and so on. But!Thank to the supreme Dice God,there is one thing that gives every DM the chance to fix all the problems:HOUSE RULES! You don't like it?You change it. It's your game.Rules have been given (and tested)from GDs,but if you want to add more rules,to create your own set of rules or just to change some of them...do it!There is no sort of D&D Security Guard that controls your actions.You can do whatever sort of thing you like with this game.Because it's a game and because you are the DM,the Alpha and Omega of the game. I've done it.I also considered some things to be unbalanced and I've changed them:some spells (wall of force,force cage,meteor swarm,gate,etc),feats (Spellcaster Prodigy=I'm seriously thinking about annihilating this feat,Improved Spell Focus=this feat as immediately been annihilated,etc), prestige classes (Archmage/Red Wizard/Ierophant/Rune Master = these prestige classes don't gain anymore the DC's improvement they were once granted,except for the Red Wizard's feat Magic Tatoo),core classes (the ranger has been changed a lot,the other classes have been changed slightly),rules (no more damage limit for falling damage,more negative bonuses when casting on the defensive,etc). You can do the same. PS=there was a RPG once played here in Italy,it's name was Simulacri (in english=simulacres).It was a roleplaying system,not a RPG, and it was wonderful.One of its main setting was the Hokuto No Ken one,you know,the one about Kenshiro. Well,the combat system introduced by that setting was wonderful and it gave you the chance to kill an enemy with just a single hit,if you rolled a good attack roll. I used that system in a fantasy setting and it was wonderful,since a duel between 2 fighters could end in an istant.Moreover,a wizard could kill lots of monsters with one single spell,but even a naked goblin,with a lucky roll,could kill him. That IS realism and balance.When the naked goblin and the arrogant wizard both have a chance to kill each other with one single blow.Which is what happens in real life... :) PS2=if you think I've written too much,sorry,but I think this is an important thread and I've written so much because I wanted to make clear my opinion.
Dexter_Blacktyde 03-16-07, 06:20 PM	You are making arguments with more aggression than is helpful or necessary. I bet you're ending up on more ignore lists from this single thread than in the entirety of your tenure on the Boards. My thoughts exactly... DB
bholdr_mage 03-17-07, 01:09 AM	I too, agree that the wizard at higher levels is more powerful than a fighter at higher levels. Who wouldn't? Take away magic items and just give mundane...the wizard is going to rule. The cleric and druid do more so however. Yet, even though certain class abilities are much better than a fighter's doesn't mean they are worthless! True, a fighter class at high level without PrCs seem bland in comparison to the spellcaster's tricks and such, but he's necessary to be there to soak up the damage while the spellcaster prepares himself for battle. And I'm sure that the wizard can select splatbook spells and feats enough for him to be completely buffed to match the fighter in battle all of the standard 4 encounters the DMG, with little else left in 3 or 4 rounds each encounter with quicken spell, swift spells, etc. So who's going to take the place of the wizard since he's taking the place of the fighter? Does a wiz have more options? Generally. Does a fighter feel useless at late levels? Probably sometimes. But it's up to the DM to make sure each character shines so that each player has a chance to enjoy the game they are playing. Every character has their strengths. A wizard or a cleric or a druid might be able to fill many roles, but the people at the gaming table won't have nearly as much fun...and isn't that the point to playing a game? I'm not going to argue that the fighter is a weak class. Most agree with this notion. But it all depends on the campaign and the player...and how good the DM is on focusing his players within his game. If one character gets too powerful, a different approach is more likely.
High Octane 03-17-07, 04:11 AM	Ys, it is. The options he uses are meaningless: the only thing that matters is that a wizard can blast away his opponents, even in melee fighting, better than a fighter. No it isn't. See now what you did is a tactic in debate where you actually use a statement that is in fact unrelated to the topic at hand which though fact does NOT prove your arguement in the point however you depend on the fact that by being right my arguement is rendered wrong by default. However the fact remains that you did not address the topic at hand. You turned what was an arguement concerning a wizards ability to replace the fighter's role into an arguement concerning how the wizard can beat the fighter in combat. However the fighters role was indicated as being melee combat. You did not address the topic of melee combat instead using the ability of the wizard to AVOID melee combat and still beat the melee combatant in combat, destroying him with spells. However your fallacy lies in the fact that the fighters role is NOT, I repeat IS NOT to AVOID melee combat but to attempt with all his might to ENGAGE in melee combat in order to either BLOCK the target whose melee combat would prove devastating to the rest of the group due to low AC, hit points, and grapple checks, OR to engage in melee combat with the person who is weak at melee combat in order to take them down via their weakness in that regard, such as a rogue, non-flying mage (Hey sometimes there are freaking ceilings), or other spellcasting creatures that generally have limited capability for melee combat, and even if he only manages to have the spellcaster take his time to AVOID said combat, he is still nullifying that target from the fight. The Wizard cannot engagehis enemies in that manner with the efficiency and expedience that a fighter can, unless he takes a long time to buff himself, AND uses a spell that stops his ability to perform his PREFERRED role as the spellcaster. Despite your attempts to use true arguements under false pretense to prove yourself right and me wrong by proxy, you have failed to prove anything whatsoever except that you know how to confuse people using an arguementive strategy that would make Stephen Colbert call you a nonsensical debater. And you misspellled "Yes". 3 letter word. http://reallylose.ytmnd.com/ (Warning, link has sound, may not be safe for work if you should be WORKING) YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!
ORC_Paradox 03-17-07, 06:59 AM	D&D is fine the way it is. High level casters still need other characters, as they can run out of spells or even face pesky anti magic fields. D&D isn't about which class is better, or which makes the others useless. With that kind of thinking, then the DM should automatically win since he controls all the monsters and NPCs, and you shouldn't even bother playing. Who needs your party, when the DM can make higher level NPCs to save the villiage? D&D isn't about making sure both sides of the balance sheet are equal. If D&D were about everything being balanced, then one first level character should be able to take on a colossal dragon all by himself. Why? That first level character is the player's; the hero of the story. D&D is also not a computer game. It requires effort to play the game. The more effort you put it, the more fun you'll have. You don't take out the books, lay them on the table and sit back to watch the books do anything. You are a participant in the game. You make decisions for your character, and the DM provides the story. No video images leap from the pages. The game is fine "out of the box", but only if you put some work into it. And yes, many complain they don't have time anymore. Some are adults who have jobs and other responsibilities they didn't have when they were teens, but quicky forget that they made the time to draw maps or create characters, while others are just lazy and want everything done for them. That doesn't change the fact that you need to set aside time to make the adventures work. Both then and now. Finally, D&D is NOT about lording over others. It seems people these days not only want to be right, but force their right-ness on others. Always looking for Official Answers, when Unofficial Answers will do just fine, if they had the open mind to give it a try. A long time ago, before the internet, DMs and players that met shared ideas on how they interpet the game rules. We didn't try to force our ideas on others and make them play the game the way we played. If we liked an idea, we'd use it. If we didn't, we'd still be polite but we wouldn't use the idea in our games, after all, unless we're going to play with someone who's idea we didn't like, he'd never know we didn't agree with him.
Egres 03-17-07, 07:16 AM	High level casters still need other characters, as they can run out of spells or even face pesky anti magic fields. D&D isn't about which class is better, or which makes the others useless. True. But the fact that some classes can easily overshaodw the others is a fact, that I didn't address alone here. Let me remind to other posters that WotC itself is showing to address this issue: just look at Tome of Battle.
ORC_Paradox 03-17-07, 07:30 AM	True. But the fact that some classes can easily overshaodw the others is a fact, that I didn't address alone here. Let me remind to other posters that WotC itself is showing to address this issue: just look at Tome of Battle. It seems to me the issue isn't the classes, but the players. I've seen players who are quiet, and they just sit there with their all powerful wizards in the background. I've seen players who wanted to fireball everything. (Glares at wife.) It's the players who grab the spotlights, not the stats on a page. Because when it comes down to it, the character is just a sheet of paper. :)
Druid_of_the_storm 03-17-07, 07:52 AM	...and the wizard walked by and said let there be peace and so there is still more argument?!.....notice the title page 3.5 is not enough. Your opinion? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but, that does not give people the right to overlord their opinion on others. I suggest you two simply give your final judgement call on what you think and be done with it...don't argue or bicker about something that is not about who is right or wrong but about their opinion.
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 08:51 AM	High level casters still need other characters, as they can run out of spells or even face pesky anti magic fields. We ran into the problem whenever playing out large scale battles. Wizards were cheaper to field (robes, a book) then melee classes (armor, magic items, weapons) and by the time they ran out of spells, not much remained of the more expensive fighters. Not to mention Druids turned into cavalry units (for free). Before we knew it ,we had entire cohorts of casters. (cohorts in the non-game sense).
Egres 03-17-07, 09:09 AM	Egres, get this through your skull. Your question to me was: "How did you fix the problem?" I answered: "I do not have a problem so there is nothing to fix." You are ticked off for some gods-only-know reason that *I don't have a balance issue* and you do. Get over it. So in the end, you are right. I have no arguments. You are the one arguing. Ok, for the Nth you ignored all of my questions (since I asked something more that you quoted). So, let's assume is only a problem of the OP. What would you suggest to him, from your 28 years experience of play?
Seeker95 03-17-07, 10:10 AM	What would you suggest to him, from your 28 years experience of play?Let the party that your players have formed be the foundation on which you build your encounters. And mix things up. Include combat encounters: Make some direct melee combat. Make some ranged combat. Make some in close quarters. Make some multi-leveled (staircases, cliff walls, etc.) Spread your opponents out so a single fireball does not work. Include non-combat challenges: Traps, hidden doors and floors, puzzles, prisoner releases, illusions. All of these require more than a fireball or lightning bolt. Your caster can only prepare a certain number of spells in a given day (or has a limited number of spells known). S/He cannot predict which spells will be most useful, and certainly cannot choose to be the party caster, rogue and fighter at the same time. If the wizard goes "all offense", then s/he is not likely to be much in the way of divination and investigation. The rogue will shine. If s/he goes "all sneak", then s/he is not very useful in combat, and the fighter will shine. If s/he goes "all support", then s/he shines by making the fighter and the rogue shine. Yes, a caster has the versatility of playing almost any role s/he wants, but has the limitation of being required to pick that role at the start of each day. Does the caster try to be a better fighter, better sneak, better supporter or a balance of all three? The balance lies in the DM's crafting of the adventure. Create a balanced adventure, with multiple roles required, and no single character, regardless of class, can shine in all circumstances. It is a game designed for four to six players. Craft your adventures to involve them all. And if the party wizard chooses to be "all-fighter all-the-time", that's okay. Non-combat encounters place that wizard in the same boat as a fighter. And my final piece of advice to any DM: Supplements are optional. Default new supplement material to "not allowed" and then allow new mechanics, classes, spells, gear, items, feats, etc. into your game on a case-by-case basis. This is not to restrict the players' creativity, but rather to ensure that you have the ability to craft (or modify) your adventures based on what you know is allowed in your game. As for why I don't have a problem with class balance in my game: I don't view any class as being "against" or even "compared with" any other. Each class is an option for the player to select based on what that player wants to do in the game. That player, at the same time, is made to understand (and usually already does) that this is a cooperative game for more than one player.
High Octane 03-17-07, 11:00 AM	Seeker, I know you and your poor arguments: you are a dead horse. I can honestly say I have never heard that term used this way before. I dont even know what that means. Is that some sort of play on beating a dead horse? When you don't find anything to address the point of the thread, you start to speak about the poster. In his defense he cant argue any of your points cause you dont seem to make any. Let me underline that you never answered to any of my questions: just to show that you have no arguments. "My but arent you a mighty deep shade of black Mr. Kettle" said the pot. A meat shield? Exactly. With stoneskin and such a wizard can be a better meat shield. Bull. There is more to being a meatshield than just taking damage. If thats all you can do you are going to be ignored. A good meat shield makes it so anything trying to pass him or get away from him is tripped, grappled, and attacked multiple times. And I dont care if you do have DR, at d4 hit points and almost certainly a lower con score you are not able to take the same amount of hits. Especially since you will probably have a lower AC and thus taking MORE hits. Oh, and the fighter can easily drink a potion of stoneskin should the need arise. Or the wizard can cast it on him. Now dont get me wrong, all things being equal a wizard will in later levels (after 9 or so) beat the fighter in almost any circumstance barring a fighter getting a grapple (unlikely at best) Edit: And even during lower levels he will have a very good chance if he gets initiative. But the infinitely wise WizO pointed out the fact that this game isnt about balance in regards to being able to take EACH OTHER down, its about each character being able to shine in their own way. So a fighter is a caster assistant? Yes he is. And the wizard is the fighter's assistant. Hence TEAM GAME. With a single Time Stop the caster can buff himself for all he needs. Not to mention Contingencies (spelling?). Okay, believe it or not, the game can be played from 1st level to 16th level as well. Some people even spend the majority of their time in that realm. But at that point hes subject to a dispel magic which would remove those buffs. And he still has to spend a 9th level spell slot to do that and it STILL takes a turn. But I misspelled it only once. Well that makes you inconsistent. Unlike me. :D
Egres 03-17-07, 11:39 AM	As for the questions you haven't answered? They are right here: I'm not upset at all. So, how can I answer to those questions? Make some direct melee combat. This isn't enough. A cleric and a druid can utterly destroy any opponent in melee combat better that any fighter. Make some ranged combat. Where casters shine even more. Make some multi-leveled (staircases, cliff walls, etc.) ? Never heard of the "fly" spell? Spread your opponents out so a single fireball does not work. This would make the entire team work, but only for a few time. The casters can get rid of their opponents quickier. "Bob, are you still wasting your time with that sword? Leave, and clear the path for my upcoming disintegrate". Traps, hidden doors and floors, puzzles, prisoner releases, illusions. All of these require more than a fireball or lightning bolt. True. Require Detect Traps, Hypercognition, Dimension Door and so on. Your caster can only prepare a certain number of spells in a given day (or has a limited number of spells known). S/He cannot predict which spells will be most useful, and certainly cannot choose to be the party caster, rogue and fighter at the same time. Scrolls anyone? Yes, a caster has the versatility of playing almost any role s/he wants, but has the limitation of being required to pick that role at the start of each day. Seeker, now you are really...wait! Did you admit that? Fair enough. It is a game designed for four to six players. Craft your adventures to involve them all. And if the party wizard chooses to be "all-fighter all-the-time", that's okay. Non-combat encounters place that wizard in the same boat as a fighter. Do you really craft your adventures so that each session there's a melee combat, a sneaky part, a puzzle part and so on? If the answer is no, a few scrolls can get rid of a poor spells selection at the start of the day. Heck, I'm not arguing for the argument's sake. This is what happened in the past 10 years DMing more than 40 parties! There is more to being a meatshield than just taking damage. If thats all you can do you are going to be ignored. A good meat shield makes it so anything trying to pass him or get away from him is tripped, grappled, and attacked multiple times. Or disintegrated, polymorphed into a toad, paralized, and so on? Now dont get me wrong, all things being equal a wizard will in later levels (after 9 or so) beat the fighter in almost any circumstance barring a fighter getting a grapple (unlikely at best) Edit: And even during lower levels he will have a very good chance if he gets initiative. If he can beat the fighter he can do the same to the fighter opponents. Thank you for your support. But at that point hes subject to a dispel magic which would remove those buffs. And he still has to spend a 9th level spell slot to do that and it STILL takes a turn. Dispel Magic, uh? A spell.
High Octane 03-17-07, 12:45 PM	Or disintegrated, polymorphed into a toad, paralized, and so on? How can he be doing that when hes spending his time and spells buffing himself? How can he be doing that when polymorphed? Or in tensers transformation? Or in nightstalkers transformation? Also you cant cast spells on attacks of oppurtunity. If he can beat the fighter he can do the same to the fighter opponents. Not necessarily. What if the opponent has high spell resistance and good saves? You made one HELL of an assumption. Look at the amazingly long list of creatures in the 4 monster Manuals and Fiend Folio. Dispel Magic, uh? A spell. Yes. Sometimes monsters and opponents can cast spells or use spell-like abilities. Why are you assuming this is a duel between a fighter and a wizard.
a_psh 03-17-07, 01:58 PM	I think it's time for the ol' list of 15 different things people could mean when they drop the word "balance" into a discussion. Because I'm seeing a lot of quibbling that's basically all about that. Excerpt from a Forge article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/): Balance: the sort-of issue "Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory. (See the linked threads in the Glossary.) The word is thrown about like a shuttlecock with little reference to any definition at all. That's the current state of the art. So I'm taking time-out on the Gamism-only discussion to go on a full GNS balance rant, because the assumption that Gamist play is uniquely or definitively concerned with "balance" is very, very mistaken. Overall 1. Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what? 2. Bear in mind that Fairness and Parity are not synonymous. One or the other might be the real priority regardless of which word is being used. Also, "Fair" generally means, "What I want." 3. Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or Effectiveness + Resource only? 4. Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has nothing to do with their abilities/oomph? 5. Are we discussing anything to do at all with players, or rather, with the people at the table? Can we talk about balance in regard to attention, respect, and input among them? Does it have anything to do with Balance of Power, referring to how "the buck" (where it stops) is distributed among the members of the group? They can't all be balance at once. Within Gamist play 1. Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B, then that's fine. 2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and "unbalanced" means numerically broken. 3. Related to #2, a team that is not equipped for the expected range of potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced. 4. In direct contrast to #1, "balance" can also mean that everyone is subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength, regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. (Tunnels & Trolls is all about this kind of play.) 5. The resistance of a game to deliberate Breaking. Within Simulationist play I am forced to speak historically here, in reference to existing and widespread Simulationist approaches, not to any potential or theoretical ones. So think of Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, and Rolemaster as you read the next part. 1. One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the Currency-based relationship among the components of a character: Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame. That's right - we're not talking about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the interacting components of a single character. I realize that this sounds weird. Check back in the Sim essay to see how important these within-character interactions can be in this mode of play. 2. And, completely differently, "balance" is often invoked as an anti-Gamist play defense, specifically in terms of not permitting characters to change very much relative to one another, as all of them improve. This is, I think, the origin of "everyone gets a couple EPs at the end of each session" approach, as opposed to "everyone gets different EPs on the basis of individual performance." 3. Rules-enforcement in terms of Effectiveness, which is why GURPS has point-total limits per setting. Note that heavy layering renders this very vulnerable to Gamist Drift. ... There we go. Read it and think about which ones actually matter to you, and which ones other posters are trying to refer to.
Egres 03-18-07, 06:31 AM	How can he be doing that when hes spending his time and spells buffing himself? How can he be doing that when polymorphed? Or in tensers transformation? Or in nightstalkers transformation? Disintegrate can be cast immediatley, just like every other spells. Not to mention that there are contingencies, and powers that last longer than a few rounds (stoneskin, for example). Please, let me underline that every non-dumbass creature knows that the caster is the first you must beat down, unless you are on a suicide route. Not necessarily. What if the opponent has high spell resistance and good saves? You made one HELL of an assumption. Look at the amazingly long list of creatures in the 4 monster Manuals and Fiend Folio. Yes. Sometimes monsters and opponents can cast spells or use spell-like abilities. Why are you assuming this is a duel between a fighter and a wizard. Not necessarily. What if the opponent has high spell resistance and good saves? You made one HELL of an assumption. Look at the amazingly long list of creatures in the 4 monster Manuals and Fiend Folio. Actualy, if you take a look to all of those creatures, you'll notice that, as CR goes higher, those creatures become too much stronger for non casters. And spell resistance is not a deal anymore, with all those feats that help you against it, or spells that ignore SR (Orb of Force and such). Yes. Sometimes monsters and opponents can cast spells or use spell-like abilities. Why are you assuming this is a duel between a fighter and a wizard. Because if we start to assume that a fighter has a caster-like opponent he's dead, just like you have said in one of your previous posts.
Egres 03-18-07, 06:43 AM	I think it's time for the ol' list of 15 different things There are only 13 listed. By the way: 2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and "unbalanced" means numerically broken. This isn't exactly what we are talking about, but it's the nearest I have found in that list. See, if you look at Tome of Battle you'll see what I'm addressing here. In fact, one of the more common comment about the book is that it helps tank-fighter-type classes to bridge the gap within them and caster classes. Just look at the massive amount of discussions around the book, and you'll find how many people think, like me, that non casters classes need help to compare with their casters counterparts, to avoid being continuously overshadowed. Let me quote Mike Mearls: I'm glad that people like the book, and I'm also glad that people have reacted in a way that we hoped they would. Namely, that warriors need a boost compared to spellcasters. Back when 3e first came out, the fighter class was really interesting. It got a ton of feats. Something like triple as many feats as anyone else. I clearly remember my first 3e fighter, a Beorn Battlehelm. Beorn was really fun to play up until around level 8. At that point, I figured out that I couldn't find any feats to really improve Beorn's main focus: two weapon fighting with a flail and battleaxe, with some tripping thrown in for good measure. The problem with making fighters rely on feats is that feats are also available to all the other classes. Furthermore, feats never had a level structure comparable to spells. A "better" feat just had a long list of prereqs, and there were no guidelines on just how good a feat could be. Thus, feats tended to cluster around the same power level. In walks the fighter. His class features are feats. Since all feats are roughly the same power, and there is little additive effect outside of trip builds, he very quickly plateaus in terms of effectiveness. It would be as if a wizard still had spell slots for levels 1 to 9, but spells were never more powerful than a 3rd level effect. There have been exceptions, but in general it's hard to make a fighter who's relevant at high levels. IME, most people who manage to pull it off rely on magic item combos and trip-based builds. Nine Swords reverses this trend by building combat maneuvers that, at high levels, are on a power curve equivalent to (though not the same as) spells.
Adrez Nesnsid 03-18-07, 08:45 AM	Escluding some nonsense found in the rules and very unrealistic facts like, for example, that a 20th level melee character does not develop any dodge skill and his/her base AC is equal to a 1st level character of the same class, the biggest problems come from primary spellcasters: except the poor bard (still not bad at all if used propely), they are just too strong. I would compensate by making all of the non spellcasting classes into NPC classes. That's the simplest solution if what you say is true.
Egres 03-18-07, 10:58 AM	I would compensate by making all of the non spellcasting classes into NPC classes. That's the simplest solution if what you say is true. Making fun of the OP doesn't help him at all. Do you really think that non casters classes can be compared to casters? Do you really think that Mike Mearls has no point?
Notsonoble 03-18-07, 02:35 PM	I'd have to say that this is all a load. I DM, and I help teach some others to DM, and most of all I Play As Well. It takes nothing to make a caster worthless at high level, simply prepare your opponents, dungeons, and regions to level the field. It really is a matter of DM tactics and thought. Yes many of the things needed to stop casters are not something a non-caster class gets, but many monster races get as SLA's or auras... Or worse, through things that make the casters have to deal with ugly fort or reflex saves... not all of these are spells, poisons, ugly non-magical traps, and the occasional wicked monster with improved grapple never hurt. also, incorporeal with wis and int and cha damage (example : joystealler + 4 levels less than caster in rogue) will tear a caster to shreds, (while a rogue in the game with a ghost touch weapon will be able to tangle with the joystealler nicely) and anyone that argues "Why is it the DM that determines the power of the casters?" HELLO ITS THE DM, HIS JOB IS TO MAKE THE GAME FUN FOR ALL, AND THAT INCLUDES KEEPING THE CHARACTERS ON PAR WITH EACH OTHER!!!! ITS HIS FLIPPING JOB The only reason any class is "too powerful" is because someone mis-read the class, or the DM's not taking advantage of all she has to use... period. And a DM that doesn't use all thats offered is a POOR DM.
Elemental 03-18-07, 03:52 PM	I'd have to say that this is all a load. I DM, and I help teach some others to DM, and most of all I Play As Well. It takes nothing to make a caster worthless at high level, simply prepare your opponents, dungeons, and regions to level the field. I see that advice a lot, and I'm really not keen on it, no matter what sort of character I'm playing. If you're the GM and you think my character is too unbalancing? Then simply either explain why something I have needs to be reduced in power or banned, or politely ask that I voluntarily not use certain tactics. But I really don't like having these awesome powers...and then everything being skewed so that I never get a chance to actually use them properly ("Gee, another antimagic field?"). I'd far prefer to have weaker powers and be able to use them to full effect, then have every encounter set up so that my character can't do what they're good at.
Luis_Carlos 03-18-07, 04:29 PM	3.5 is enought for D&D, but the trouble is the d20 system for campaings like d20 Past, d20 Modern, d20 Future and urban arcana. For example...what is the CR of a gobling with a bazooka? and if you kill a lot a enemy zombies with a flame thrower since a chopter. How much px is for your PCs if you destroy a tank with a mine? What if my Pc pilots a AH-64 Apache and shoots down a Mil Mi-24? We are going to need a new table to estimating the PXs if characters has more or less powerful weapon!!!
Sudnji_cas 03-18-07, 07:36 PM	Not only they don't fear a melee warrior even if they are very closed to him They may cast spells, but cold steel gets as it would anyone Last words of Conan the barbarian fan in D&D universe.
kenji508 03-18-07, 08:00 PM	Its not just the high lv spells that **** me off, one lv2 spell is ridiculously broken. Knock basically makes your rogue obsolete. The one thing the rogue can do and no one else cant, is pick locks, and disarm traps. Knock can basically do both, instantly, every time, and no check. No matter how hard the lock is, knock can open it, but the rouge has to pour skill points into it just to have a chance at opening it after a couple rounds. What’s more, if he fails to notice a trap, the rogue takes damage, while knock will eliminate this possibility if the trap is built into the door. Knock can replace an lv 20 rogue, and it’s only an lv 2 spell... what’s that say to you?
twad 03-18-07, 08:40 PM	IMO Casters are only so good. They are like artillery; hit hard but must know where the ennemy is, and very vulnerable to anything they arent prepared to. Classes strenght/weaknesses description by me and my humble opinion. Wizzard may have a wide choice of spells, but they cant cast a lot, no spontaneous casting, they are dependant on their spellbook. Physicaly weak. Lot of skills. Familiar. Sorcerors Have a less wide spell choice, but cast when and what they want. More versatile and less vulnerable to surprises. Familiar. Clerics have spontaneous healing, all the spell list, Heavy Armor. Good ammount of SPD. But, they are clerics. Wich mean they must "follow the guidance of thier gods" to keep thier powers. Druids have spontaneous summons, all the spell list, limited hardware, Shape Change. And they are druids, wich mean they "must follow the guidance of.. er.. nature/god of nature whatever" to keep their powers. Animal companion. Paladins have heavy armor, heavy resistance, good hardware, some spells, few SPD, a mount, and must "follow the guidance of thier god" to keep their powers. Bards are a funny mix of party support, rogue skills, utilitarian spells, light armor. Jack of all trades. Rangers are specialists. Good combat, good skills, few spells, animal companion. A bit like bard with an emphasis on combat. Rogues are heavy hitters (with S.A), truck loads of skills. Moderate in combat. Heavily customisable. Monk; unarmed melee Jackie-chan. High resistance, highly autonomous later on. Low gear needs. Barbarian: Damage eater and dealers. Good skills. Might be gear dependant. Fighter: heavily customisable, with so many feat can completely take control of a battlefield (disarm, sunder, grapple, bullrush ect ect ect) Good hardware. If you cant defeat something with pure damage, then control it with something else than damage. Few skills. Might be gear dependant. ...And anyway, intelligent players and intelligent ennemies completely change the outcome of any battle. The battlefields can be so chaotic/varied that no one can claim mastery over everything. A class doent "win" just by being itself.
Archangel62 03-18-07, 11:54 PM	IMO Casters are only so good. They are like artillery; hit hard but must know where the ennemy is, and very vulnerable to anything they arent prepared to. Classes strenght/weaknesses description by me and my humble opinion. Wizzard may have a wide choice of spells, but they cant cast a lot, no spontaneous casting, they are dependant on their spellbook. Physicaly weak. Lot of skills. Familiar. Sorcerors Have a less wide spell choice, but cast when and what they want. More versatile and less vulnerable to surprises. Familiar. Clerics have spontaneous healing, all the spell list, Heavy Armor. Good ammount of SPD. But, they are clerics. Wich mean they must "follow the guidance of thier gods" to keep thier powers. Druids have spontaneous summons, all the spell list, limited hardware, Shape Change. And they are druids, wich mean they "must follow the guidance of.. er.. nature/god of nature whatever" to keep their powers. Animal companion. Paladins have heavy armor, heavy resistance, good hardware, some spells, few SPD, a mount, and must "follow the guidance of thier god" to keep their powers. Bards are a funny mix of party support, rogue skills, utilitarian spells, light armor. Jack of all trades. Rangers are specialists. Good combat, good skills, few spells, animal companion. A bit like bard with an emphasis on combat. Rogues are heavy hitters (with S.A), truck loads of skills. Moderate in combat. Heavily customisable. Monk; unarmed melee Jackie-chan. High resistance, highly autonomous later on. Low gear needs. Barbarian: Damage eater and dealers. Good skills. Might be gear dependant. Fighter: heavily customisable, with so many feat can completely take control of a battlefield (disarm, sunder, grapple, bullrush ect ect ect) Good hardware. If you cant defeat something with pure damage, then control it with something else than damage. Few skills. Might be gear dependant. ...And anyway, intelligent players and intelligent ennemies completely change the outcome of any battle. The battlefields can be so chaotic/varied that no one can claim mastery over everything. A class doent "win" just by being itself. You my friend need to look at what happens if a caster is played tactically and intelligently.
Vaelan 03-19-07, 12:58 AM	The Oberoni Fallacy is not an "relic", its the statement that it is fallacious to admit a problem by providing a fix, and then call it no problem. The fact is that the entire method of discussion in which this particular relic can be anything but irrational is, itself, irrational. But nobody has formed a fallacy stating as much, so I don't really expect the idea of intelligent and relevant discussion to stick. In this case "Good DMing" is the "fix", where "Good DMing" = houserule out the stuff you don't like. Actually, in this case good DMing means running the game according to the guidelines presented in the DMG. You are assuming that people who don't have problems have houseruled to fix them, despite the fact that nobody has said anything even resembling such a thing. You're holding that which is being disputed as true and making assumptions about other people's statements accordingly. Do I have to go look up a list of fallacies and show you how what you're doing falls into one of them? I would appreciate it if you could show a little bit of independant thought for once and realize how irrational and invalid this course of action is on your own. I've also been DMing for 15 years. I know what I'm doing. I'm going to have to disagree on the grounds that you're having problems whereas other DMs do not. I'd like to note that I am aware that I couldn't actually know that it is a matter of incompetence on your part just as you cannot know enough to substantiate any contrary claim. Given this position of mutual ignorance, we both must agree that you simply being incompetent is as much of a possibility as any other conclusion. Also, saying you've DMed for 15 years is meaningless. The standards for DMs aren't terribly high in many places due to the relative rarity of people who actually care to DM. "Inefficient course of action" doesn't mean that a caster can't overshadow non casters easily. The rules are quite clear about how resources should be taxed in a day of adventuring. If you pursue such inefficient courses of action, you will come up short on resources and, as such, will fail. The technical capability, which is debatable, is meaningless because it won't work in a game run by the guidelines presented in the DMG. You may as well play a Sorcerer and rush into combat with a greatsword and full plate. You are admitting that the problex exists too, so. The people who are asserting that there is problem are simply ignoring the rules on how the game is supposed to be ran and stubbornly refusing to do so much as conceive of the idea, hiding behind a useless, dysfunctional form of discussion that arbitrarily discounts parts of the rules that are both valid and important to the point being made. Also, I have not seen the problem. I play with people that are capable of playing the game much more effectively than the majority of people on these boards, whether they are playing a Wizard, Fighter, or Bard. The problem doesn't exist in my games in the presence of all of the factors which several people claim invariably wreck any game, which leads me to believe that it is not a problem with the system as I am running it according to the guidelines in the DMG.
twad 03-19-07, 01:31 AM	You my friend need to look at what happens if a caster is played tactically and intelligently. Oh, i know what happens, anything played smartly and creatively usually get interesting results. Casters, however, make it a lot more obvious. They can hit more stuff with one attack. And are better at crowd control. Its just im a bit biaised since i didnt played/saw many casters. Still a bit unfamiliar with them and all their potential. When i play casters i usually stick with utilitarian spells and buffs.. like enlarge person, shield other, true strike.. I leave most of the smacking for the others. Then again, i played in relatively low-mid level games.
Daydreamer 03-19-07, 01:59 AM	The dm can certainly create situations that make the wizard in a spot of trouble and allow the fighter to shine. It can even be done semi-regularly without too much strain on credulity if the dm is clever and depending on the campaign. Fighters however, do retain there use as the subjects of buffs from clerics/wizards...i know it sounds wierd that they need buffs, but the fighter 'benefits' more from such buffs than the wizards/priests and therefore its overall better to do it this way.
a_psh 03-19-07, 02:21 AM	There are only 13 listed.I cut out the "Narrativist" ones, which makes 15. They're kinda handwavy. Here you go, if you really want to know:Within Narrativist play This gets a little tricky because I can't think of a single coherent Narrativist game text in which balance as a term is invoked as a design or play feature, nor any particular instance of play I've been involved in which brought the issue up. But I'm pretty sure that it's a protagonism issue. 1. "Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms, this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness component. 2. Balance of Power is relevant to all forms of play, but it strikes me as especially testy in this mode. (Throughout that particular text, "Effectiveness" refers to static numbers like BAB, "Resource" refers to pools and counters like Hit Points, and "Metagame resource" refers to little after-the-fact tweaks like bennies and action points, or metagame ideas like "spotlight time". The classification was later altered, I think.) [#2] isn't exactly what we are talking about, but it's the nearest I have found in that list.I'm with you on the ToB stuff. Haven't really been following the discussion too well of late, so I can't say much more than that.
Mr_Sandman 03-19-07, 04:47 AM	Sadly, i never had the pleasure of playing original dnd. The first rpg i ever got for pen and paper was players handbook and the DM guide 3.5. I have read both of these books cover to cover multiple times and i honestly think they are good, solid, fun, balanced and genuinly entertaining. Of course, the only thing i have to compare the books to are dnd video games like baldurs gate and neverwinter nights, but i like 3.5. Im not a spellcaster person, more of a kill things guy, but the wizards and other casters seem relatively balanced to me. As i said, i never played adnd or original, but thats my opinion, at least for what its worth (which probably isnt much).
Adrez Nesnsid 03-19-07, 06:51 AM	Escluding some nonsense found in the rules and very unrealistic facts like, for example, that a 20th level melee character does not develop any dodge skill and his/her base AC is equal to a 1st level character of the same class, the biggest problems come from primary spellcasters: except the poor bard (still not bad at all if used propely), they are just too strong. I would compensate by making all of the non spellcasting classes into NPC classes. That's the simplest solution if what you say is true. Making fun of the OP doesn't help him at all. Do you really think that non casters classes can be compared to casters? Do you really think that Mike Mearls has no point? I was being serious. The relative power level of casters depends on how they're played and how they're adjucated by the DM, but if they're being played as being that powerful, the simplest solution would be to make them slightly more powerful to differentiate tham further from the non-casting classes, and then make the non-casting classes NPC classes (with the appropriate negative level adjustment) Or, alternately, the casting classes could be made slightly more powerful, and then all casters could be hereafter treated as if they had +1 LA OR the DM could adjucate casters better (but that takes a lot more work)
CharlieRock 03-19-07, 10:19 AM	Or, alternately, the casting classes could be made slightly more powerful, and then all casters could be hereafter treated as if they had +1 LA OR the DM could adjucate casters better (but that takes a lot more work) Kinda how Classic D&D's Clerics started level 1 with no spells?
PoeticJustice 03-19-07, 10:30 AM	Knock can replace an lv 20 rogue, and it’s only an lv 2 spell... what’s that say to you? Assuming that's the only locked door in the whole dungeon/guildhouse/whatever, this is correct. However, I find that to be an unlikely occurrence. In a more sensible game, this spell would be used to open a door when the party is in a situation from which it needs to leave NOW not 10 rounds LATER. Also, Knock beats traps?
a_psh 03-19-07, 11:13 AM	Or, alternately, the casting classes could be made slightly more powerful, and then all casters could be hereafter treated as if they had +1 LAA geometric progression always beats out a linear progression sometime. 3e's basic design assumes that power-per-level is almost a fixed quantity but then gives us casters, for whom it grows and grows with each level they acquire. That's why, if you think of this as a problem, it's a tricky problem to fix: no amount of simplistic buffing or nerfing can fix it, since all you're doing is changing *when* casters outclass everyone else.
OravennasBrother 03-19-07, 02:29 PM	You my friend need to look at what happens if a caster is played tactically and intelligently. You my friend need to look at what happens if a FIGHTER is played tactically and intelligently.
Seeker95 03-19-07, 03:30 PM	Knock can replace an lv 20 rogue, and it’s only an lv 2 spell... what’s that say to you?I say I have never seen a knock spell: Flank, Sneak Attack, Evade, Move Silently, Forge a Document, Tumble, (although it can work tumblers) :P Hyperbole is only useful when you mean to be funny.
AllisterH 03-19-07, 04:00 PM	There just needs to be a way to discourage a caster from onloading all of their high level spells at once. One suggestion I've heard was simply use a con/fatigue-draining system similar to the Slayers d20 method. A level X spell drains X points of Con - doesn't affect the lower level spells but then if Time Stop drains you for 9 pts of Con, you're not going to willing to cast Gate unless you have to win. Another method is simply force a concentration check a la Slayers d20 again. Basically, any spell that has a duration longer than instanteous has to be concentrated on to be maintained. Thus, if you have Mage Armour up already, to cast say a fireball you have to make a concentration check of say X + existing spell levels + casting spell level or in this case X + 1 + 3. Again, you still have high level spells but there are harder to use and won't dominate a battle as much.
Daydreamer 03-19-07, 05:02 PM	There just needs to be a way to discourage a caster from onloading all of their high level spells at once. One suggestion I've heard was simply use a con/fatigue-draining system similar to the Slayers d20 method. A level X spell drains X points of Con - doesn't affect the lower level spells but then if Time Stop drains you for 9 pts of Con, you're not going to willing to cast Gate unless you have to win. Another method is simply force a concentration check a la Slayers d20 again. Basically, any spell that has a duration longer than instanteous has to be concentrated on to be maintained. Thus, if you have Mage Armour up already, to cast say a fireball you have to make a concentration check of say X + existing spell levels + casting spell level or in this case X + 1 + 3. Again, you still have high level spells but there are harder to use and won't dominate a battle as much. This is an interesting method-however those restrictions are probalby too extreme...should be a smaller factor.
Seeker95 03-19-07, 08:30 PM	There just needs to be a way to discourage a caster from unloading all of their high level spells at once.Why? If you're sending your PCs against solo opponents, then you've already stacked the deck in favor of the PCs. If you use multiple opponents but line them up like bowling pins, you're disadvantaging the bad guys too much. If you use multiple opponents that choose not to stand all lined up in a row, then a wizard, cleric, or whatever high level caster you choose, is going to have a hard time making even multiple spells in a single round count for much as far as decreasing the length of combat goes. Casters are not a problem unless you choose to let them be. There is no need to break the rules, bend the rules, or change the rules to manage a party that includes a caster. Keep the challenges varied and keep your challengers intelligent. Play the bad guys the same way you would play your own PC -- with a survival instinct and some brains (assuming they have brains, of course). In my last campaign, I invited a few friends over to serve as "guest DMs". I gave each of them one of the BBEGs, working as a team. They had already scouted out the PCs using normal gather information techniques. And I gave them permission to kill the PCs. I kept my guests upstairs until they received the signal from me. They came downstairs, I introduced them, and then gave the opening bell: Roll Initiative. The casters found themselves unable to make the most effective use of their spells because the BBEGs spread out and had already protected themselves against a few of the more lethal spells. And the melee combatants had to attack with a little more finesse because the BBEGs moved around to avoid allowing anyone to use a full-attack option. The PCs survived, barely. And a good time was had by all.
High Octane 03-19-07, 11:01 PM	Its not just the high lv spells that **** me off, one lv2 spell is ridiculously broken. Knock basically makes your rogue obsolete. The one thing the rogue can do and no one else cant, is pick locks, and disarm traps. Knock can basically do both, instantly, every time, and no check. No matter how hard the lock is, knock can open it, but the rouge has to pour skill points into it just to have a chance at opening it after a couple rounds. What’s more, if he fails to notice a trap, the rogue takes damage, while knock will eliminate this possibility if the trap is built into the door. Knock can replace an lv 20 rogue, and it’s only an lv 2 spell... what’s that say to you? I say that theres a famous quote on the boards where someone bedunks a similar complaint. Hate to tell you, but everyone has the ability to open a lock. Its called a boot. Or an axe. I do find that its not all that useful for a rogue to keep putting ranks into open lock after level 9 or 10, but at lower levels it has its uses. Its quiet, it doesnt use up a valuable spell slot, and has unlimited use.
0rion79 03-21-07, 12:40 PM	Casters can overshadow easily noncasters in everything they do. With a few spells like Divine Power or Tenser's Transformation, a buffed caster can wipe away every non caster in his own field. An invisible, silenced caster can be a sneaker better than any rogue. Can you prove me wrong? Hi, what happened here is very interesting and this has been my starting point of view. Now, I want only to answer about 2 things: 1 - if the game rules are good, there should not be almost any need of house rules, except to cover DM + players' very special tastes or to fix some FEW mistake that passed playtesting unseen. I PAYED for the expensive manuals and I want the rules inside to work fine for me: if good DMing means to create house rules, then it is just useless to pay for such expensive handbooks if I already know that the rules inside are broken. 2 - many of you are assuming too many things that are strictly connected to their own game experience, but you are not considering that there may be other situations where what you wrote in those pages may be untrue (you'll understand this while reading). - About buffing and spells like Righteous Might, that boost a spellcaster's combat skills.... Why do you assume that a wizard has to buff himself during the battle and not before? It may happen that the party ambushes their foe(s), the spellcasters may have the time to buff themselves with everyspell that they have and, with all the buffing spells on, they may become equal or even better than melee fighters, overshadowing them. And, even if Tesner's transformation (or whatever) alone may not be such a great spell (still thing to demonstrate), still it is a great last-resource spell that allows a wizard to better defend himself after consuming all other spells, or against spell-resistant monsters, just to name two cases and , imho, it is wrong. Not to talk the most obvious combo: greater invisibility + protection from arrows + stoneskin + fly. How could a melee fighter defend himself against such a powerful foe, with only his own resources and without using any magic item? - about overshadowing other characters when not fighting... it is easy for a spellcaster to find a way to do better than a diplomatic or an intruder or a lockpicker. Creating items like wands or scrolls it is possible to cast the same spells many times in the same day, or teleport may be used to escape into a secure area, sleep, prepare the needed spells, come back and to all the work. And what about giving some spells to a sorcerer, that may cast them endless times? Consequences may sometimes be unexpected. Some ways to reduce spellcasters' powers that you showed me are nice, but they should already be inside core rules and tested first. Imho, it is not a bad thing that spellcasters can use spells that simulate skills that are obviously other classes' main skills (example: invisibiliy may be used to simulate rogue's hide skill, when exploring or seeking for informations) but those spells, if casted on the spellcaster himself, should always grant a worst performance than the one garanted by a specialist that masters that particular skill. So, still using the rogue as sample, if the party is without a rogue, then the wizard may cast invisibility on himself as very poor alternative, something that is better than nothing but never as good as having a good rogue in the party, but, if the same spell is casted on the rogue, then it gives him greater benefits than to the wizard himself. About unexpected sides, you are talking about teamwork, but I tell you: not all parties are composed by cooperative players and, as it always happens with my ones, in one single party there are characters from very different allignments and it is their right to fight each other when they don't agree or to be selfish and not to help the party member that they like less (or don't like at all). D&D has many classes that are obviously dependant from magic items, gear or whatever, while usually spellcasters (and especially the sorcerer that may choose new spells to every level-up, while the wizard may be forced to use only what the DM allows him to find) may already be fine and extremely proficient only with their own spells. More, some of you spoke about beginner DMs and beginner players that still do experiment a funny game. Ok, but players are not stupid and soon or later they will learn how to use broken spells or rules, or at least some of them. More, there are spells that are clearly broken, and that allows a too easy winning even outside the combat (telerport, greater invisibility) and, even if there are ways to limit the use of magic, it is not realistic that there is one of them in every corner of the world. Only the richest empires (or evil organizations) should have the proper counter-measures for these spells or the proper magic equipment for their followers! Not the tranquil cities in the countryside! If the DM will insist too much in limiting an overpowered character, the player will feel it as a persecution! Someother of you instead spoke to me about D&D 1st edition. Guys, I started to play with it, I enjoyed AD&D, AD&D IInd, 3.0 and 3.5 so I guess I know something about D&D. In 3X version it is a must that every character has his ammount of magic items: magic is not something so rare or unique, while I miss the times where just finding a +1 ring of protection was a great goal. Except this, I think that it is right that there is only one XP progression for all classes, the point is what you allow them to get every new level and it must be balanced all the time. I the whole, what all classes get at 20 level must be equal and balanced, but what they get must be different in contnents and represent the different specialization path of that class. More, it must be distributed equally among all of the 20 levels of experience: imho, it is wrong having the wizard more powerful at high levels and the fighter is more powerful at low levels! It is a game, rules are made to greate a good game and not to adapt some stereotipes to it so I don't see why ALL classes can't be balanced but able in different specialization fields, some with spells, some with weapons, some a bit better while fighting, others better when exploring and outside the combat. Having all classes aproximatively at the same level enhances the role-playing and interpretation factors, since players don't think anymore about what is the best choiche and what is not and don't forget that rules must be good both for veteran players, both for the new ones that still have to learn what the role-playing concept is. I guess I forgot something, but I think it is enough for now. See you.
Rakasha#5 03-21-07, 01:06 PM	I will NOT spend another couple hundred on books after the addition has been out only since 2003! PERIOD!
High Octane 03-21-07, 06:20 PM	I will NOT spend another couple hundred on books after the addition has been out only since 2003! PERIOD! This is without a doubt the best words spoken in his thread. Question is, what the HELLS do you people want? Do you want perfect balance levels 1-20? IT WON'T HAPPEN. I dont even get people who seem to think of 20 as some sort of endgame should be balanced kind of horsecrap. This is NOT World of Warcraft, The Game doesnt BEGIN at 20. 95% of the game is BEFORE 20. Epic level games aside, but thats a whole new ball game that shouldnt even be mentioned in the same BREATH as a 1-20 game. In fact D&D in general is a different ballgame that could be divided every 5 levels. At low levels The characters are relatively balanced. Your wizard can only cast a few spells a day, and they do low damage, but spells like sleep work wonders. However even at level 1 you can encounter things immune to sleep. Now you complain once they reach a certain level everyone who isnt casting spells is useless? First off I've played with a 13th level ranger/scout (multiclass, cant rememebr the level split) doing over 100 damage a turn using 3 non-magical arrows and no self buffs against something that WASN'T a favored enemy over 45 feet away. This wasnt theory, it actually happened in game. Is that balanced? HELL no. A lot of things can become unbalanced very easily at higher levels. Now how much playtesting do you think they can truly afford? Want a balanced game? Have EVERYONE play the same class. That is the ONLY way it will be balanced. This isnt a video game with a set path, this is 500,000 different games with a similar set of rules, but completely different situations. And under different situations, guess what, DIFFERENT CLASSES EXCEL OR FAIL. Do nothing but Dungeon Crawl? The bard will be pretty sad. Never travel or go outside? The ranger sure wont feel too good. An undead hunting campaign? Boy is that enchanter going to have a hard time. So what happens when the party never faces anything with spell resistance and/or high saving throws and/or energy resistance? Of course the arcanist will blow everything away. Throw a demon at the crew and see how the spellcasters offense suddenly is nullified since they end up having a 25-30% chance at best of beating their spell resistance and a 20-25% chance at best of the demon failing any sort of saving throw. All in all, verse a higher demon, a spellcaster has somthing along the lines of a 10% chance of affecting the target in any decent way. Then watch a well prepared party buff the fighter and rogue and watch them dominate the crap out of the now flanked demon as the cleric keeps the 2 alive and the mage does his best to disrupt the spellcasting. The DM has to balance the game. A gaming system can only do so much. And what do you expect by complaining here? A new addition? A patch? A 3.75? The game is balanced enough at lower levels, and by level 10, it isnt D&D anymore. Its the DMs game. Since by then he will have houseruled the crap out of it and built his own style.
twad 03-21-07, 07:45 PM	(snipage of good stuff). You made a very good point.
High Octane 03-21-07, 09:52 PM	You made a very good point. *ticks sig*
0rion79 03-22-07, 07:26 AM	1- Do you want perfect balance levels 1-20? IT WON'T HAPPEN. 2 - I dont even get people who seem to think of 20 as some sort of endgame should be balanced kind of horsecrap. 3 - In fact D&D in general is a different ballgame that could be divided every 5 levels. 4 - First off I've played with a 13th level ranger/scout ...it actually happened in game. 5 - Now how much playtesting do you think they can truly afford? 6 - [demon matter] 7 - The DM has to balance the game. A gaming system can only do so much. And what do you expect by complaining here? A new addition? A patch? A 3.75? 8- The game is balanced enough at lower levels, and by level 10, it isnt D&D anymore. Its the DMs game. Since by then he will have houseruled the crap out of it and built his own style. The most crappy answer ever. 1 & 2 - I have payed for the manuals and I expect the game to be balanced from 1st to 20th level, since it is my right to play an adventure both with high lever characters or to add high level NPCs in it as final enemies for the adventure. 3 - I already know the game, you don't have to teach me how to play. 4 - it is only your personal opinion and it is useless that you keep taling of what happened to you: try instead to see things in the whole and, as side fact, you are talking about a multiclass character, not a pure class character. Then, yes, you did a lot of damage, but I'm sure that it has been a matter of luck with a sucesfull sneak attack. Can you do the same against the endless number of creatures that are immune to critical hits? I think not and, anyway, the fact that you reported doesn't resolve anything. 5 - man, are you crazy? that's wizards of the coasts! One of the most powerful and rich companies in RPG and trading card games! They have all the time and resources to do all the playtesting that they need! 6 - the demon matter is only a case that does not represent the mayority of situations. A demon is a rare thing, and most of the enemies are not extraplanar creatures with all those protections against magic. 7 - why not? it is only you that are accepting things as they are. I even wonder if you got your manuals from emule or if you really spent moneys for them. Actually, I want nothing because it would be too difficult to fix the game. Yes, maybe a patch that adds new high-level feats for the basic melee classes to increase their power and, since soon or later a 4.0 version will come out, I would really like a substantial change in core rules to make the game playable and balanced from the beginning to the "end", even if there is no real end, as you rightfully wrote. There is no need to have all classes esactly at the same level of power regardless if at level 5, 10, 15 or 20, but it is right to expect them to be aproximatively at the same level. Then it is fair that a class is more proficient in some circumstances or environment than another one, but I'm not talking about this: I'm talking about looking at things in the whole. Soon or later a 4.0 version will come up. Not now for sure, prehaps into the next 5 years, but then I'll pretend that all this matter has been fixed, that the gap between the weakest classes and the strongest ones has been filled at least at 85-90% together with a better order of core rules and extra handbooks (there is such a mess between extra feats and extra spells with the older ones!). All this should already has been done from the beginning, prehaps already in 3.5 from 3.0. 8 - it is only your opinion and it is far away to be an objective fact. Ignoring the problem and using house rules to slove it is not a solution, and your same opinion for which home rules are needed measn that core rules are broken and uneffective.
a_psh 03-22-07, 08:08 AM	You my friend need to look at what happens if a FIGHTER is played tactically and intelligently.He uses his copious feats to get really good at one or two gimmicks, then probably level-dips a bit in order to pick up some synergistic abilities, you mean? Or he goes out and buys a lot of magic items?
Zumarai 03-22-07, 08:15 AM	All I have to say is that I've never had a problem capturing the feel/flavour of any genre/campaign etc with any edition of the D&D rules. If it's not real life, and it's just a game, it will never perfectly capture the "real thing".